BT 12: 
.B7 



THE 



BIBLE DEFENDED 

AGAINST THE 

OBJECTIONS OF INFIDELITY: 

BEING AN EXAMINATION OF 
SCIENTIFIC, HISTORICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL 

AND OTHER 

SCRIPTURE DIEEICITLTIES. 



BY RET. W. H. BRISBANE, 




PHILADELPHIA: 

HIGGINS & PERKINPIKE, 

NO. 40 NORTH FOURTH STREET. 
185 5. 



e>1 & D 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by 

HIGGIXS & PERKIXPIXE, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in 
and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
STEREOTYPED BY GEORGE CHARLES, 
PRINTED BY T. K. it P. G. COLLIN'S. 



PREFACE. 



In the preparation of this little volume, we have en- 
deavored to bear in mind the wants of Sabbath School 
Teachers and Scholars, who, in their scriptural studies, 
occasionally meet with " some things hard to be under- 
stood," upon which they desire a ready and convenient 
means of information. As well have we endeavored to 
remember the wants of the private Christian who, in his 
daily reading of the Bible, meets with difficulties, or, in his 
intercourse with his fellows, hears objections made thereto, 
for the solution of which he has neither the time nor 
means for research. Nor have we forgotten the honest, 
yet doubting inquirer after truth, (and we believe there 
are many such,) to whom the seeming discrepancies of the 
Bible have been made a temptation to unbelief. We trust 
he may here find, in some measure, an antidote to his 
skepticism. 

There is no attempt here to exhibit (except in an inci- 
dental manner) the evidences of the authenticity of Scrip- 
ture ; our special object has been to refute infidel objec- 
tions to the Bible, arising from the nature of its contents. 

(8) 



4 



PEEFACE. 



In this task, we have availed ourselves of the best sources 
of information, on the subjects treated of, within our 
reach; and in the statement of matters of fact, have de- 
pended upon the most reliable authorities. Many of the 
objections have been drawn from original sources, and, in 
some instances, are given in the language of infidel wri- 
ters. In the Introduction a number of objections are 
examined which could not well be classed under texts, but 
which, nevertheless, claimed some notice in a work of this 
character. 

The order of the texts has been followed through the 
book, but a copious topical index is added, which will be 
found useful in referring to the subjects discussed. 

Our performance bears ample internal evidence that we 
are unskilled in book-making, yet, conscious as we are 
of its imperfections, we send it forth, trusting that it will 
be, as " seed-corn cast upon the waters," borne to some 
genial soil, and productive of much good. 



INTRODUCTION. 



POSITION OF INFIDELITY. 

Christianity is so suited to our moral condition, 
so perfectly adapted to the wants and demands of 
our nature, that it is accepted, and its practical 
advantages realized, not so often from patient exa- 
minations of its voluminous and conclusive evi- 
dences, as from the felt need of that which it 
professes to give. It appeals to a conscious want. 
And men rarely investigate the evidences of its 
authenticity until they feel this want. Infidelity is 
too often assumed to subdue this inward craving 
for a higher good than earth can give, and to 
smother the uprising conviction that Christianity is 
of God. For this reason it has proved, and must 
ever prove, a failure. It is at war with the moral 
exigencies of our nature, and can never hope for 
success. 

In their attack upon the Bible, infidels have im- 
posed upon themselves an equally hopeless task. 
It devolves upon them to prove the whole Bible his- 
torically untrue, or, if they admit the truth of some 
portions of it and deny that of others, they must 
1* ' (5) 



(3 



INTRODUCTION. 



give us clear and well-defined rules or principles to 
discriminate between the true and the false, and 
hold themselves willing to accept the legitimate 
consequences of such principles. To receive some 
portions, and reject others at will and without rule, 
as is too often done, is manifestly unjust and dis- 
honorable.* But the historical truth of the Old and 
New Testaments is sustained by many infidel writers, 
from Celsus to Gibbon, by accredited profane his- 
tory, by the rules of evidence which prevail in our 
courts of justice, and upon which we give credence 
to any historical record. Its historical truth being 
established, its inspiration and divine authority are 
easily proved. We laugh to scorn then the wicked 
hopes and malignant assaults of infidelity. The 
star of our holy religion is still in the ascendant. 
" Persecuted, but not forsaken — cast down, but not 
destroyed" — " the Kose of Sharon" still blooms, the 
lovelier for the storms that have shaken it, and shall 
lift up its head in perennial beauty and deathless 
fragrance, when the pillars of the universe totter, 
and " the mountains are moved out of their places." 

* "This book, evidently composed by different hands, has yet its 
materials so inter-woven, and its parts so reciprocally dependent, 
that it is impossible to separate them — to set some aside, and say : 
'We accept these, and reject those:' just as, in certain textures, 
no sooner do we begin to take out a particular thread, than we 
find it is inextricably entangled with others, and those again with 
others ; so that there immediately takes place a prodigious gather- 
ing at that point, and if we persevere, a rent; but the obstinate 
part at which we tug will not come away alone." — Eclipse of Faith, 
p. 396. 



r 



INTEODUCTION. 



7 



THE SOURCES OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF SCRIPTURE. 
In order to form a just estimate of the character 
of Scripture difficulties, it will be necessary to inves- 
tigate the principal sources from which they derive 
their origin. 

I. The Bible, containing an account of God's cha- 
racter, his dealing with men, &c, may naturally be 
expected to include many things beyond our under- 
standing, and to discourse of many subjects, both 
novel and mysterious. Difficulties of this kind, 
arising from the nature of its contents, prove, rather 
than disprove, its superhuman origin, and are, at 
least, presumptive evidence of its truth. 

II. The greater part of these writings was com- 
posed to serve a present purpose, and unless we 
enter into that purpose, and are prepared to follow 
the argument of the writer, we must, of course, to 
some extent, fail to comprehend his meaning; there- 
fore, the lack of proper preparatory knowledge on 
our part may prove a source of difficulties. 

III. These books are of extreme antiquity,- and 
often refer to persons, places, opinions, prejudices, &c, 
many of which are forgotten, but which must be 
recalled if we would fully understand the reference. 

IY. The different sources from which the sacred 
writers drew their narratives, the different names 
applied to the same persons and places, the different 
persons and places bearing the same name, and other 
circumstances of like nature, are sources of difficulty 
to those who do not make themselves acquainted 
with them. 



8 



INTRODUCTION. 



V. These books have not come to us as they were 
written. Their original languages are not generally 
understood, and we read them under all the disad- 
vantages of a translation. The translation may be 
imperfect, or its expressions may have become obso- 
lete, and, in some instances, the learned translators 
may have mistaken the sense of the original. The 
difficulties which arise thus, though serious, are not 
insuperable, but may be overcome by careful and 
patient research. 

VI. The omission of incidents in one narrative of 
events, which are supplied in another narrative of 
the same occurrences — a diminution of record, if we 
may so term it — is a source of difficulty, and espe- 
cially in the Gospels. In such cases, all the facts 
given by the several writers should be taken together, 
in order to form a complete historical view of the 
events recorded. 

To one or other of the above-named sources may 
most of the difficulties of Scripture be referred. 
They are almost exclusively of an historical cha- 
racter, not affecting, in the remotest degree, the 
doctrines upon the knowledge and practice of which 
the salvation of the soul depends. These essential 
doctrines are exhibited in the plainest and most 
intelligible manner, and among their several 
branches there subsists the most perfect harmony. 
Therefore, the unlettered Christian need have no fear 
when infidels parade these difficulties before him 
with malignant ostentation. 

It may be asked — Why has Grod permitted these 



INTRODUCTION. 



9 



difficulties to accumulate in his written word ? We 
can answer this only by asking — Why has he not 
embodied himself in the letter of the record ? Why 
has he chosen such a medium at all ? Why have not 
the heavens everywhere blazed with the record of 
his will in characters of fire, clear to every eye, and 
plain to every mind ? 

The various difficulties of the Bible may be classi- 
fied, in reference to their character, under the follow- 
ing heads : — 

I. Difficulties arising from obscure or incorrect 
translation. 

IL Difficulties that may be obviated by compara- 
tive reference. 

III. Texts which have been willfully perverted by 
gainsay ers. 

I V. Difficulties that may be cleared by reference 
to natural causes, obsolete customs, ceremonies, &c. 

V. Chronological and topographical difficulties. 

VI. Difficulties in the application and understand- 
ing of names. 

VII. Difficulties arising from derangement of 
chapters and verses in some of the books. 

As these are severally considered in the order in 
which they occur in the Bible, we shall not now 
stop to notice them further. But the above view 
of their character and the resources of their origin 
may tend, perhaps, to dissipate the fears or preju- 
dices we may have entertained respecting them. 



10 



INTRODUCTION". 



THE NECESSITY OP A REVELATION. 

Infidels reject the Bible because it is unnecessary; 
nature, they say, teaches all of God and of morals 
man has need to know. How this can be proved, 
or what is its value, if true, is hard to discover. 
Admitting that some measure of religious truth can 
be deduced from the course of nature, this would 
neither prove the Bible untrue nor unnecessary ; it 
might even then serve well as a guide to religious 
knowledge. The objection, therefore, has no force. 
If, however, we prove there is a necessity for a reve- 
lation* from God, it will be a presumption that such 
a revelation has been made. Denying then the suf- 
ficiency of the light of nature, we shall proceed to 
show that the exigencies of man's moral condition 
call for a revelation from God. 

L Man is a religious being. We mean by this that 
he has been created with religious instincts. In 
every phase of his existence, from the lowest bar- 
barism to the highest degree of civilization, he 
worships something and constantly manifests an 
instinctive longing for immortality. This truth is 
so obvious that it needs no proof. If he instituted 
these various forms of worship without Divine direc- 
tion, it was certainly in obedience to the conscious 

* Perhaps it would be better to use the term direct revelation, 
for, if God has in any degree exhibited his character and will in 
the course of nature, he has made a revelation — since to reveal, is 
to exhibit, or make known, in any way. Hence, when infidels say 
that God's laws may be learned from nature, they concede, not 
only the necessity, but the fact of a revelation. The question then 
will be — Is a direct revelation of God to man necessary ? 



INTRODUCTION. 



11 



necessities of his nature and proves the existence of 
his religious instincts.* 

II. Nothing within man or without him, short of a 
revelation, can satisfy the demands of this instinct. It 
is here that infidels join issue with Christianity. 
The necessity of some degree of religious sentiment 
is conceded, but the necessity of the Bible is denied. 
The old English infidel writers claimed that the 
mind could discover all necessary religious truth 
from its own resources, without supernatural aid. 
But this is not so. Take the fact of God's existence 
— how can man in his original state, as he sponta- 
neously grew up, or was created, discover this fact ? 
The very idea of God is foreign to him, and how is 
it to be communicated to his mind ? Can he deduce 
it from the existence of natural things? He has 
first to form an abstract idea of spiritual existence; 
but everything he sees or feels is material, how then 
is this idea to be formed ? But the ability to reason 
on such subjects supposes an educated mind, educa- 
tion supposes civilization, civilization supposes reli- 
gion, and religion supposes some knowledge of God. 
That condition in which man originally was, accord- 
ing to the theory of infidelity, precludes all reason- 
ing on such abstract points. He was a mere animal 
and incapable of reasoning outside the sphere of 
his physical necessities. If he is educated it must 

* The existence among all nations of professed revelations of 
God's will and character, is evidence of the necessity of a revela- 
tion. If these sacred books were the inventions of men, they were 
invented because they were felt to be needed. 



12 



IXTKODUCTIOX. 



be in civilized society, but we know of no civiliza- 
tion without a religious basis. Thus we reach the 
conclusion, that a revelation was necessary at the 
very beginning of man's histoiy. 

" Would a single individual, or even a single 
pair of the human race, or indeed several pairs of 
such beings as we are, if dropped from the hands of 
their Maker, in the most genial soil and climate of 
this globe, without a single idea or notion engraved 
on their minds, ever think of instituting such an 
inquiry; or, short and simple as the process of in- 
vestigation is, would they be able to conduct it, 
should it somehow occur to them ? No man who 
has paid due attention to the means by which all 
our ideas of external objects are introduced into 
our minds through the medium of the senses ; or to 
the still more refined process by which, reflecting on 
what passes within our minds, when we combine or 
analyze these ideas, we acquire the rudiments of all 
our knowledge of intellectual objects, will pretend 
that they would."* 

"Between matter and spirit, things visible and 
invisible, time and eternity, beings finite and beings 
infinite, objects of sense and objects of faith, the con- 
nection is not perceptible to human observation. 
Though we push our researches, therefore, to the 
extreme point, whither the light of nature can carry 
us, they will in the end be abruptly terminated, and 
we must stop short at an immeasurable distance 
between the creature and the Creator." f 

*Glieg's Stackhouse Intro. f Van Mildert's Discourses. 



INTRODUCTION. 



13 



Again — "Suppose a person, whose powers of 
argumentation are improved to the utmost pitch of 
human capacity, but who has received no idea of 
God by any revelation, whether from tradition, 
Scripture, or inspiration, how is he to convince 
himself that God and from whence is he to learn 
what God is ? That of which he yet knows nothing, 
cannot be a subject of his thought, his reasonings, 
or his conversation. He can neither affirm nor deny 
till he know what is to be affirmed or denied. 
From whence then is our philosopher to divine, in 
the first instance, his idea of the infinite Being, 
concerning the reality of whose existence he is, in 
the second place, to decide ?"* 

If it is said, this idea of God is instinctive in 
man, we ask, how came it to be so ? It could not 
create itself in the mind, and if God created it 
there, then he has revealed himself to man, and 
revelation is not only a necessity, but a fact. 

It is sometimes argued that conscience is contin- 
ually suggesting to man a divine and overruling 
presence — a superhuman something to which he is 
amenable, and which is God. 

But conscience supposes the communication of 
God's will, as a standard of right and wrong, as 
much as it supposes the existence of God. And we 
very much doubt whether the existence of a con- 
science will serve the purpose of the deist who, 
rejecting the authority of a direct revelation, depends 
solely upon his own reason. 

* Hare's Preser. against Socin. 

2 



14 



INTRODUCTION. 



To this argument, from the evidence of conscience, 
we may well apply the reasoning of Faber on the 
evidence of design. " The argument, from the eviden 
design impressed upon the universe, proves, indeed, 
that the universe must have been first designed and 
then created; but it is incapable of proving, that 
the universe had no more than a single designer. 
Whether we suppose one designer or many design- 
ers, and thence one creator or many creators, the 
phenomenon of evident design in the creation will be 
equally accounted for : and, beyond this, the argu- 
ment in question, as managed upon deistical prin- 
ciples, neither does nor can reach. The deist, I 
allow, can prove very satisfactorily, and without the 
aid of revelation, that the universe, marked as it is 
in all its parts by evident design, must have been 
itself designed, and therefore created ; but he never 
did, and he never can prove, without the aid of 
revelation, that the universe was designed by a 
single designer."* So, conscience does not say 
whether it is one God or many to whom man is 
amenable. Further, the infidel, by admitting the 
existence of conscience and its intimations of 
accountability, concedes the adaptation of man's 
moral constitution to a direct revelation, and by 
denying such a revelation involves himself in an 
inextricable dilemma. 

But waiving all these difficulties, and supposing 
the fact of God's existence is known, how are we to 



* Difficulties of Infidelity. Sec. II. 



INTRODUCTION. 



15 



learn of his nature, our obligations to him, and our 
future destiny ? 

Where does nature unfold those perfect and 
sublime lessons on the attributes of God, of which 
infidels boast ? Where does it tell us that he is a 
God of infinite power, on whose almighty arm we 
may fling the burden of our cares, and stay our 
hopes of immortality ? Nowhere. Do you say his 
power is everywhere manifest ? True ; but it is an 
infinite power. How can we prove, from nature, 
that he has not done the utmost he can do ? That 
he made everything that is made does not prove 
that his power is without limit, or that the limit 
has not been already reached; that we can conceive 
of no higher exercise of power than is evidenced in 
the creation of the universe is nothing to the point, 
for there may be exercises of power beyond our 
conception, and even these exercises may fall below 
infinitude. 

Where does nature teach that God's wisdom is 
infinite ? The nice adaptation of means to ends, the 
wonderful harmony of nature's operations, are not 
adequate proof that he who made and moves the 
universe is infinitely wise. Where is the evidence 
that he " readeth the hearts and discerneth the 
thoughts of men," that he sees " the end from the 
beginning," and provides for the evil afar off? 
Where is the proof? 

Where does nature teach us that God is love? 
Where does it so unfold the goodness and mercy of 
God as to melt the heart and win back to rectitude 



16 



INTRODUCTION. 



the wandering prodigal? "Nature teaches," says the 
infidel, "that God is "benevolent." Benevolent f 
Benevolent in providing for the necessities of his 
creatures ; necessities which, upon the theory of 
infidelity, he himself created ? So this is the benevo- 
lence which is to exact from us the highest and 
holiest forms of religious reverence ? which rates 
us with the beasts and birds, and minutest animal- 
cule of microscopical notice? — for what is man 
above these, when measured by that care which is 
bestowed upon each and all alike ? If the infidel's 
notions of divine benevolence depended upon what 
he learned of it from the course of nature, they 
would be meagre indeed. 

But how is he to reconcile with this benevolence, 
the withering drought, the crushing tempest, the 
blasting pestilence? He goes into a scene of life 
and gayety, and in the very midst of festivity, some 
sudden, fatal casualty crushes hearts just now beat- 
ing and bounding with bliss. He looks upon some 
calm, peaceful landscape, smiling with beauty, and 
suddenly clouds and darkness sweep over it, and the 
mad, howling tempest desolates the scene. He goes 
into his family, circles himself with loved ones, and 
in the midst of domestic bliss, death enters — stills 
the prattle of his darling — rends the finest feelings 
of his heart — crushes the soul of her whose joy is 
the sunlight of his home — and he starts up tempted 
to think that some infernal devil disputes with God 
the government of this world. And how will 
nature solve these difficulties ? Without the Bible 



INTRODUCTION. 



17 



they are inexplicable mysteries, and life itself is one 
dark problem to which there can be no solution. 
So imperfect are the teachings of nature on these 
first principles of religion. 

Rom. L, 20, has been supposed to teach that the 
nature of God may be learned from his works. But 
God originally revealed himself to man, conse- 
quently, it was not difficult to deduce something of 
his nature from " the things that are made," and 
develop afresh the knowledge of God from the 
contemplation of his works and providence. And 
the Apostle restricts this knowledge of God to his 
higher nature in general — "the dominion of a 
mighty power over the elements of the world" — 
but not including his personal existence as an abso- 
lute spirit, his justice, holiness, and love.* 

And where is man to learn a perfect rule of life ? 
Must he follow the dictates of his own heart ? Then 
lust will be his monitor and passion his guide. Shall 
he appeal to the nations of antiquity ? Among these 
their captives, slaves and children were murdered 
with impunity, and thousands 

" Butchered to make a Roman holiday." 

Lying, theft, adultery and crimes of foulest dye, 
were frequently, constantly practised; their altars 
were often stained with human blood, and their 
temples polluted with shocking obscenities. 

Is he, turning from these, to follow the precepts 
of philosophers and legislators of antiquity ? What 

* See Olshausen on the passage, 

2* 



18 



INTRODUCTION. 



authority have these to teach him ? By what right 
do they demand his obedience? Clearly they are 
without authority. But whom of them is he to listen 
to ? Zeno and Diogenes sanctioned many impuri- 
ties ; Lycurgus and Solon legalized infanticide ; 
Draco punished all crimes with blood ; Plato advo- 
cated a community of wives; Aristotle was bitter 
and revengeful ; the Catos cruel and immoral. And 
modern infidel philosophers are not much above 
these in morality. One of these tells us that " phy- 
sical good is the rule of virtue, and physical evil 
the rule of vice." But such rules are both deficient 
and impracticable. There are virtues which do not 
result in physical good ; there are vices not attended 
with physical evil; there is physical good which 
does not arise from virtue. The lightning rod on 
my house results in physical good, but it was not 
necessarily virtue that put it there ; and so of a 
thousand other occurrences in life. An infidel work 
now before me says, "that course which on the 
whole tends to produce the greatest amount of phy- 
sical good is a virtuous course." But how is a man 
to determine what course will produce the greatest 
amount of physical good? He can not depend upon 
the testimony of others ; for/on the supposition that 
a revelation exists many would decide on that basis, 
— on the supposition of no revelation, opinions 
would still be conflicting, therefore every man must 
decide for himself, and when by his long experience 
he might make some sort of determination, it would 



INTRODUCTION. 



19 



be useless ; habits would be fixed and death at hand.* 
Therefore, without the Bible there is no sufficient 
rule of life. 

And where is man to learn his future destiny ? 
If he appeals to ancient philosophers, one tells him 
his soul is material, another that it will be trans- 
mitted through beasts and birds, another that it will 
be absorbed into the Deity. All is darkness and 
confusion. He asks — is my soul immortal — if so, 
what shall be its doom or destiny ? Cicero doubts 
— Caesar denies — Seneca wavers. 

Here nature fails — the material can not reveal the 
mysteries of the spiritual. This world speaks for 
itself alone, it can not speak for another. Here I 
stand upon the crumbling brink of time ; every 
moment some portion of my resting place drops into 
the deep abyss, and threatens next to plunge me 
into its unfathomable depths. Clouds and darkness 
thicken around me. From what part of nature 
shall come the beam to illume the future ? Where has 
she hidden the Promethean fire which may light me 
through the valley of death ? Everything within and 
without impels me forward — good God ! into what ? 

* " All reasoning on morals presupposes a distinction between 
inclinations and duties, affections and rules. The former prompt ; 
the latter prescribe. The former supply motives to action ; the 
latter regulate and control it. Hence it is evident, if virtue have 
any just claim to authority, it must be under the latter of these 
notions; that is, under the character of a law." — Hall on Modern 
Infidelity. • 

But deductions and inferences from the course of nature cannot 
have the force of moral laws. 



20 



INTRODUCTION. 



Here Infidelity fails me, Philosophy fails me, Reason 
fails me, and, bnt for the Bible, there would remain 
nothing but to leap, with the hopeless desperation 
of a suicide, into the profound gloom and perish for- 
ever. Thank Grod, then, for the Bible. In this all 
the dark problems of life are solved, and man is 
made wise unto salvation. Here I find offered to 
my hopes a destiny beyond the reach and ravage of 
time, and outstripping the sublimest conceptions of 
man ; here is the beam that will light up the regions 
of death, and fling the bloom and beauty of immor- 
tality around my ascending path to the thrones and 
crowns of heaven. 

MYSTERIES OF THE BIBLE. 

Infidels often object to the Bible that it contains 
mysteries. Yet the nature that they would deify is full 
of mysteries. There are more to be found in any 
one department of science than is contained in the 
whole Bible. But the term mystery is only another 
name for our ignorance ; that which we do not com- 
prehend we call mysterious. To the pupil, there 
are mysteries in mathematics which are very clear 
to the teacher. So by properly studying the Bible, 
and becoming imbued with its spirit, much that is 
now incomprehensible will be made plain and satis- 
factory. 

But there are matters connected with God, and 
the "things invisible and eternal," which must ever 
remain mysterious to the human mind, at least in 
its present condition. Apart from this, however ; 



INTRODUCTION". 



21 



the Bible makes plain, even to the understanding of 
a wayfaring man, enough "for doctrine, for correc- 
tion, for instruction in righteousness : that the man 
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
all good works." 

THE IMMORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 

It is sometimes asserted that portions of the Bible 
are very indelicate, and even immoral. An infidel 
lecturer lately said, it is the most immoral book he 
ever read. This charge comes with very bad grace 
from those whose philosophy undermines the whole 
superstructure of virtue and morality, and gives 
lust and passion the empire of the world. If the 
morality of Infidelity is to be judged of by the cha- 
racter of its celebrated leaders, Bolingbroke, Yoltaire, 
Kousseau, Paine, and others, or from the manifest ten- 
dencies of the socialistic theories of Owen and the 
French Communists, then it behooves infidels to hang 
their heads with shame and confusion. 

The Bible simply records facts relating to human 
conduct ; if these are indelicate, the charge is to be 
laid against human nature, and not against the 
record. Moreover, there are terms and expressions 
in our English version which have to modern ears a 
tone of indelicacy ; but this was not formerly the 
case, and it is to be attributed to the changes which 
are constantly occurring in our habits and language.* 

Although the Bible exhibits the wickedness of 

* A Turk would think it highly indelicate, and even immoral, for 
a female to appear in the wStreets without a veil. 



22 



INTRODUCTION. 



man, it never justifies, but always condemns it, at 
the same time, it presents us such precepts and prin- 
ciples as constitute the purest and only authoritative 
system of morality known to man. 

TESTIMONY. 

An infidel of this country recently said : — " The 
Bible depends for acceptance upon testimony, but 
testimony is not to be received. Christians them- 
selves do not believe in testimony, only as suits 
their caprice. Chinese, Hindoos, Persians, and other 
nations, have their sacred books sustained by testi- 
mony, but Christians reject them. Mormons claim 
to have testimony for their books, Romanists have 
testimony for their traditions, Protestant sects sum- 
mon testimony to the support of their peculiarities, 
but the testimony of each is received or rejected by 
the others, only as suits their whims or peculiar 
views." 

This is very dishonest. But admitting the reason- 
ing, it does not follow that the Bible is untrue, 
excluding, by the conditions of the argument, all 
infidel testimony against it, the whole matter is 
reduced to this — Every man must determine the 
question of the Bible's authenticity for himself, and 
not depend upon the testimony of others. Let 
infidels take this position (the only one consistent 
with the above argument), and press home upon 
every man the necessity of settling the question for 
himself, and there will be no doubt of their sincerity 



INTRODUCTION. 



23 



or consistency, and but little complaint of their 
zeal. 

But the argument is fallacious. It does not dis- 
criminate between true and false testimony. The 
character of the testimony must determine whether 
it is to be received or rejected. The testimony 
adduced in support of the Bible must be weighed 
upon its own merits, and if found wanting we shall 
not complain of its rejection. But such sweeping, 
wholesale, indiscriminate repudiation as infidels too 
often deal against the Sacred Books, betokens a 
spirit contemptibly illiberal. 

The remarks of Butler, on the historical evidence 
of miracles, acknowledged to be fabulous, suit our 
purpose at this point. " But suppose," he says, 
" there were even the like historical evidence for 
these, to what there is for those alleged in proof of 
Christianity, which yet is in no wise allowed, but 
suppose this ; the consequence would not be, that 
the evidence of the latter is not to be admitted. 
Nor is there a man in the world, who, in common 
cases, would conclude thus. For what would such 
a conclusion really amount to but this, that evidence, 
confuted by contrary evidence, or in any way over- 
balanced, destroys the credibility of other evidence, 
neither confuted, nor overbalanced ? To argue, that 
because there is, if there were, like evidence from 
testimony, for miracles acknowledged false, as for 
those in attestation of Christianity, therefore the 
evidence in the latter case is not to be credited ; 
this is the same as to argue, that if two m:n of 



24 



INTRODUCTION. 



equally good reputation had given evidence in 
different cases no way connected, and one of them 
had been convicted of perjury, this confuted the 
testimony of the other." * 

\Ye repeat it, therefore, that the truth of Chris- 
tianity must be decided upon its own evidences, and 
not in view of the truth or falsity of other systems 
of religion. 

AXONTMOTJS BOOKS. 

"Anonymous, and therefore without authority," 
reiterates Paine, with unblushing effrontery. Admit- 
ting that some of the books of the Bible are anony- 
mous, they certainly had authors, and if true when 
the authors were known, they are equally true now. 
If the writer of a true history becomes in the lapse 
of time unknown, the history does not thereby 
become false. If its authenticity be proved, it 
matters nothing how much doubt rests upon its 
origin. If Paine did not know this he was sadly 
ignorant ; if he knew and would not acknowledge it, 
he was shamefully dishonest. 

There are issuing from the press constantly, 
Almanacs, Registers, Reviews, Magazines, &c, which 
are anonymous, but many of them strictly authentic, 
and to be confidently depended upon for the matters 
of fact they contain. 

The origin of the Canonical books, as far as 
ascertained, is as follows. The first five — the Pen- 
tateuch — were written by Moses. The book of 



* Butler s Analogy, Tart II. Chap. YII. 



INTEODUCTION. 25 

Joshua, by Joshua. Judges and Euth are attributed 
to Samuel by most Biblical scholars. The two 
books of Samuel, the two Kings, and the two Chro- 
nicles, bear evidence of being compiled, in part, 
from the national records; the first twenty-four 
chapters of 1st Samuel, are said, by Talmudical 
writers, to be the work of that prophet, the remain- 
der were compiled by Gad and Nathan. The books 
of Ezra and Nehemiah are attributed to the persons 
whose names they bear. The writer of Esther is 
now unknown. The book of Job was written either 
by himself, or by Moses, most probably by the latter 
from original sources. The Psalms are mainly from 
David, the remainder are from Ezra, Moses, and 
others. Proverbs, up to the thirtieth chapter, Eccle- 
siastes, and Canticles are by Solomon. The several 
books of the Prophets, by those whose names are 
attached to them. The Gospels were written severally 
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; Luke wrote also 
the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistles to Eomans, 
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Co- 
lossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Phile- 
mon, are beyond doubt Pauline ; the authorship of 
the Epistle to Hebrews is not definitely settled, but 
it is generally attributed to Paul. James the Less, 
the son of Alpheus, is believed to be the author of 
the Epistle of James. Peter is the author of the 
two bearing his name ; and the brother of James the 
Less, sometimes called Judas and Thaddeus, wrote 
the Epistle of Jude. Eevelations were written by 
3 



26 



INTRODUCTION. 



John. Eespecting the Canon, the historical evidence 
is very clear and conclusive. 

From Josephus, Philo, Melito and the Talmud, we 
learn that the Jewish Canon agrees precisely with 
our Old Testament Scriptures, exclusive of the 
Apocrypha. The Canon of the New Testament 
was fixed, as now received, at an early age of the 
Christian church. In the third century we have 
two complete catalogues of our sacred books, besides 
a distinct recognition of them in quotations and 
references by Cyprian, Victorinus, Origen, and nearly 
forty others. 

In the second century we have references and 
quotations in the writings of Tertullian, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, Irenaaus, Justin Martyr, and besides, 
the old Syriac and Italic versions, which fix the 
genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures up to 
that period. There have come down to us from the 
first century, Epistles of Poly carp, Ignatius and 
Clemens Eomanus, which contain formal quotations 
from, or distinct allusions to most of the New Tes- 
tament books ; sufficient proof that they were held 
to be genuine by the contemporaries and immediate 
successors of the Apostles.* 

Independent of this and other external proof, 
there is such internal evidence of the genuineness 
of the several canonical books as to place their 
claims, in this respect, beyond all reasonable doubt. 

* Carpenter, Home, Lardner. 



INTRODUCTION. 



27 



VARIOUS READINGS. 

Among the old copies of the sacred books, pas- 
sages are sometimes found to read differently in 
different MSS. When it is difficult to determine 
which is the true reading, they are called various 
readings. 11 Infidels have endeavored to shake the 
faith of less informed Christians, by raising objec- 
tions against the number of various readings. The 
unlettered Christian, however, need not be under 
any apprehension that they will diminish the cer- 
tainty of his faith. Of all the many thousand vari- 
ous readings that have been discovered, none have 
been found that affect our faith, or destroy a single 
moral precept of the Gospel. They are mostly of a 
minute and trifling nature : and by far the greatest 
number make no alteration whatever in the sense. 11 * 

OMISSIONS. 

In describing certain events, it has happened that 
some of the writers have omitted facts which are 
noticed by others ; as in the Gospels, Matthew has 
related occurrences which are passed over in silence 
by the other Evangelists, and they, on the other 
hand, have recorded facts which he omits. These 
omissions have been treated by infidel writers as 
contradictions. But nothing could be more absurd, 
not to say dishonest, than such a course. That such 
differences should exist is perfectly natural. The 
disciples were not always together, and if they had 
been would not have seen with one pair of eyes ; nor 



* Home. 



28 



IXTEODUCnOX. 



would the different circumstances in the same event 
have been equally impressed upon all their minds. 
There must, then, of necessity, be some such differ- 
ences in their several narratives as we now find in 
them. The same remarks are applicable in some 
degree to others of the sacred writers. But let it be 
borne in mind, that omissions are not contradictions, 
nor is silence concerning a fact a denial of it. If 
there were a perfect agreement among the inspired 
penmen, word for word and fact for fact, infidels 
would be quick to seize upon that as an indisputable 
evidence of collusion, and would reject the whole 
as a made up story. 

"If there had been an absolute harmony, even to 
the minutest point, I am persuaded that, on the 
principles of evidence in all such cases, many would 
have charged collusion on the writers, and have felt 
that it was a corroboration of the theory of the 
fictitious origin of these compositions. But as the 
case stands, the discrepancies, if the compositions be 
fictitious indeed, are only a proof that these men 
attained a still more wonderful skill in aping veri- 
similitude than if there had been no discrepancies 
at all. They have left in the historic portions of 
their narrative an air of general harmony, with an 
exquisite congruity in points which lie deep below 
the surface. — a congruity which they must be sup- 
posed to have known would astonish the world when 
once discovered; and have at the same time left 
certain discrepancies on the surface (which criticism 
would be sure to point out), as if for the very pur- 



INTRODUCTION. 



29 



pose of affording guarantees and vouchers against 
the suspicion of collusion ! The discords increase 
the harmony. Once more, I asked, could I believe 
Jews, Jews in the reign of Tiberius or Nero, equal 
to all these wonders ?"* 

ANTHROPOMORPHISMS OF SCRIPTURE. 

It has been objected that the Bible often speaks 
of God as having "hands," "feet," "eyes," as mov- 
ing from place to place, as if invested with a human 
form, and possessing human passions, as "jealousy," 
"vengeance," &c. And it has been assumed, from 
this, that the writers of the earlier books believed 
God to be a being of body and parts. 

Nothing could be more unjust than this. We 
could quote, from infidel writers, in prose and verse, 
passages liable to the same objection ; in which God 
is said to see, and hear, write his laws on nature, im- 
press his tvill on the mind, &c, expressions which, 
equally with the above, imply the possession of phy- 
sical organs. Seeing is done with the eyes, writing 
with the hands, &c, but the use of such language by 
no means proves the writers to believe that God 
possesses such organs. 

It is impossible to speak of the operations of the 
human mind, to say nothing of spiritual things of a 
higher order, without using language in a figurative 
sense. The above forms of expression are, there- 
fore, unexceptionable. " They are absolutely neces- 

* Eclipse of Faith, p. 209. 

3* 



30 



INTRODUCTION. 



sary. Without them nothing positive can be as- 
serted of God. God himself has referred us to them. 
He who would get rid of them loses God entirely 
while he tries to purify and refine his conceptions 
of him."* 

Though such language is freely used in the Bible, 
there is also the clearest revelation of God's in- 
finity ; showing the divine purpose, that the people 
should not rest in the form as literally exact. We 
are thereby most carefully guarded from the errors 
of materialism on the one hand, and the not less 
pernicious errors of pantheism on the other. We 
are told that " God is a spirit" — and that " the word 
was made flesh" — the sublimest manifestation of the 
Deity ever made to man was in the person of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

The following remarks on the subject, by John 
Quincy Adams, are worthy of attention. " An im- 
material Deity was an idea entertained by the He- 
brews alone, of all the nations of antiquity. And in 
order to preserve them from the errors of others in 
this respect, one of their commandments expressly 
forbade them to make graven images for objects of 
worship. Yet in their holy books God is said to 
have made man in his own image, after his own 
likeness. And in all the interpositions of the Deity, 
with which their sacred history abounds, he is always 
represented as operating by physical organs. This 
has been made, by some shallow cavillers against 
religion, an argument to dispute the authenticity of 
* Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch. 



INTRODUCTION. 



31 



the Scriptures. It is absurd, say they, that the al- 
mighty and eternal Creator of the universe should 
see, and hear, and speak, and work, and rest from 
his labor, like the mere clod of humanity. True : 
but to make the conception of immaterial energies 
intelligible to the capacities of man, they must be 
presented in images of sensation. To show how im- 
possible it is for the human mind to escape from this 
thraldom of sense, examine how the philosophical 
poet, in his essay on man, has undertaken to exhibit 
the Deity. 

" 'All are but parts of one stupendous whole, 
Whose body nature is, and God the soul ; 
That, changed through all, and yet in all the same ; 
Great in the earth, as in the ethereal frame ; 
Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, 
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees ; 
Lives through all life, extends through all extent, 
Spreads undivided, and operates unspent ; 
Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part, 
As full, as perfect in a hair, as heart; 
As full, as perfect in vile man, that mourns 
As the rapt seraph, that adores and burns ; 
To him no high, no low, no great, no small ; 
He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all.' "* 

Pope's Essay on Man, Ess. I. 

THE USE OE THE THIRD PERSON. 
It is denied that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, be- 
cause he is so often spoken of therein, in the third 
person. That one so little read as Paine should 
make such an objection, is not a matter of surprise, 
* Lectures on Rhetoric. Vol. II., p. 259. 



32 



IXTEODUCTION. 



but that astute and learned German critics should 
propose it, shows them sadly and obstinately pre- 
determined in their unbelief. 

If an answer to this objection is at all needed, it 
is sufficient to say, that such a style of writing is 
often used in the classics. " There was in the army 
a certain Athenian, Xenophon," &c. Anab., b. iii., 
ch. 7. " And Xenophon replied," &c. Mem., b. i., 
ch. 3. See also Caesar's Comm. 

THE FRAGMENTARY AND DOCUMENTARY THEORIES. 
The genuineness of the Pentateuch, and of Genesis 
particularly, has been denied on the assumption that 
they were compiled from fragments or documents, 
and ascribed to Moses, but really belonging to a 
later age. Of the Pentateuch, it is said, " the order, 
the arrangement of the parts, is very peculiar. It is 
not strictly regular, and connected ; but often abrupt 
and almost unnatural ; it often consists of successive 
fragments, broken, unconnected, and these are some- 
times wound up with distinct conclusions."* From 
this fact, it is assumed that the books were compiled 
from fragments of previously existing histories. But 
this conclusion does not follow from the premises. 
The fragmentary character of the books, so far as it 
appears, is easily accounted for. They were written 
during the arduous labors of Moses as governor of 
the Jewish nation, and their broken, disconnected 
style, is just what we should expect under the cir- 



* Jahn. 



INTRODUCTION. 



33 



cumstances; it is, indeed, a valuable internal evi- 
dence of their genuineness. 

But there is another theory on this subject ; ori- 
ginating, we believe, with De Wette, namely, that 
the Pentateuch was compiled from two pre-existing 
documents, — the Jehovah and the Mhhim documents. 
This assumption is made because in certain passages 
the Deity is spoken of by the name Jehovah, in 
others by the name Elohim (God); a very slight 
basis, one would think, for a theory involving such 
a serious consequence as the genuineness of the 
sacred books. 

We shall give the reasons why these two names 
were applied to God, when we come to examine 
Ex. vi. 3 ; meanwhile, we remark, that they are used 
in such relations, and are so intimately connected in 
many passages, as to afford in that way a sufficient 
refutation of the theory. For instance, in Gen. vii. 
16, it is said, " And they that went in, went in male 
and female of all flesh, as God (Elohim) had com- 
manded him ; and the Lord (Jehovah) shut him in." 
The two names are used in one sentence, and this 
sentence could not have been constructed from two 
distinct documents. Again, in Gen. ii. and iii. chaps., 
the two names are connected — Lord God (Jehovah 
Elohim); completely refuting the documentary 
theory. 

But whether the Pentateuch was written in part 
from pre-existing documents, or otherwise, it is, as 
we now have it, the work of Moses, and divinely 
authenticated. 



34 



INTRODUCTION. 



This cannot be denied without invalidating the 
whole Scripture canon. The r>ew Testament pro- 
ceeds on the authenticity of the books of Moses. 
See Matt. v. 17, 21, 27; xix. 4, 5; xxiv. 38, 39- 
Eom. v. 14, 16 : Heb. xi. 3, 4 : 2 Pet. ii. 5, &c. The 
existence of these books may be traced through the 
entire history of the Jews. .Amos, living about 780 
B. C, alludes to and quotes them. Compare Amos 
ii. 10, with Dent. xxix. 5 ; ch. ii. 11, 12, with Num. 
vi. ; ch. iv. 4, with JSTum. xxviii. 3, and Deut. xiv. 28. 
We can trace these books also through the times of 
the Kings. Compare 1 Kings xviii. 23, 33, with 
Lev. i. 6-8 ; ch. xx. 42, with Lev. xxvii. 29. The 
history of the Judges gives evidence of the existence 
of the Pentateuch. Compare Jud. i. 20, with Num. 
xiv. 30 ; ch. v. 4, with Deut. xxxiii. 2. On these 
several points let the reader consult a Eeference 
Bible, and he will find the evidence full and satis- 
factory, the above being but a few of the many pas- 
sages which may be cited in proof. Tracing, then, 
uhe existence of the books up to a close proximity 
with the age of Moses, the supposition of their being 
Forged becomes preposterous and untenable. But it 
is declared that the books came directly from the 
hand of Moses, and that an autograph copy was 
placed in the archives of the nation. Deut. xvii. 18, 
19 ; xxxi. 24-26. Thus would they have borne 
testimony against themselves, had they been im- 
posed upon the people at any later age, of by any 
other authority than that of Moses. Indeed, such 
an imposition was rendered impossible. 



INTRODUCTION". 



35 



Moreover, these books contain the civil and eccle- 
siastical laws, and religious institutions of the na- 
tion, with an account of their origin and the source 
of their authority ; these gave shape and character 
to the nation, making them a distinct and peculiar 
people amid all the nations of the earth, so that 
wherever Jews are found, they are a living proof of 
the existence of the books of Moses. This has been 
true in every age. Indeed, without these books, the 
Jews, as such, could have never had an existence. 
And we find in this fact, an unanswerable argument, 
if no other existed, of the genuineness and authen- 
ticity of the Pentateuch. 

THE MYTHICAL THEORY OE STRAUS. 

Straus, in his Life of Christ, assumes that the 
Gospels are nothing more than a collection of myths 
and legends, wrought into consecutive form ; that 
the several narratives are not the work of a few in- 
dividuals, but rather the outgrowth of the Jewish 
mind, and, consequently, not inspired or divinely 
authenticated. 

This theory, though adopted by some infidels of 
our country, has not received much favor on this 
side of the Atlantic. Neander, in his Life of Christ, 
has fully examined and satisfactorily met Straus' 
objections to the Gospel narratives, and to that work 
we refer the reader who desires to see a thorough 
discussion of the question. "We shall confine our 
remarks on the subject to a few points. 

1. The theory of Straus is a mere assumption. It 



36 



INTRODUCTION. 



is without proof. The difficulties on which he 
grounds his opposition to the Gospels, are not re- 
lieved by it, (unless the substitution of others of a 
more serious character be a relief,) and they may be 
removed without it ; so that it is entirely uncalled 
for and gratuitous. 

2. The plain, prosaic, simple manner of the nar- 
ratives ; their detailed account of many occurrences ; 
the correspondence of their style with the character 
of their authors, together with the fact, that the wri- 
ters relate much which they actually saw and heard, 
precludes the suppositions of myths and legends. 

3. The abundant evidence, internal and external, 
of the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels, 
constitutes an unanswerable objection to the assump- 
tions of Straus. See Paleifs Evidences. 

4. The age of Christ was inadequate to the pro- 
duction of the Gospels. It is impossible to con- 
ceive of them as the outgrowth of the Jewish mind. 
Effects cannot exceed the causes which produce 
them, streams cannot rise higher than their foun- 
tains. But the character of Christ, as given in the 
Gospels, is far superior to the age in which he lived; 
the combined greatness of that, and all preceding 
ages, could not equal him. "The picture of the 
life of Christ, which has been handed down to us, 
does not exhibit the spirit of that age, but a far 
higher spirit, which, manifesting itself in the linea- 
ments of the picture, exerted a regenerating in- 
fluence not only on that age, but on all succeeding 



INTRODUCTION. 37 

generations. The image of human perfection, con- 
cretely presented in the life of Christ, stands in 
manifold contradiction to the tendencies of hu- 
manity at that period ; no one of them, no combina- 
tion of them, dead, as they were, could account for 
it. Whence, then, in that impure age, came such a 
picture, (a picture which the age itself could not 
completely understand, of which the age could only 
now and then seize a congenial trait to make a cari- 
cature of,) the contemplating of which raised the hu- 
man race of that, and following ages, to a new de- 
velopment of spiritual life? The study of this 
picture has given a new view of the destiny of hu- 
manity ; a new conception of what the ideal of 
human virtue should be, and a new theory of 
morals : all which vanish, however, when we with- 
draw our gaze from its lineaments. The spirit of 
ethics, which had taken to itself only certain fea- 
tures of the picture — broken from their connection 
with the whole — and was corrupted by foreign ele- 
ments that had bound themselves up with the Chris- 
tian consciousness, was purified again in contem- 
plating the unmutilated historical Prototype in the 
days of the Eeformation. And whenever the spirit 
of the age cuts itself loose, either in the popular 
turn of thought, or in the schools of philosophy, 
from this historical relation, it estranges itself also 
from the ethics of Christianity, sets up a new and 
different ideal of perfection from that which the 
revelation of Christ has grounded in the conscious- 
4 



38 



IXTKODUCTICXN". 



ness of man."* If this picture is not real, then 
is the production of it by human hands, and the 
effects following its creation, a more astounding 
miracle than any ever ascribed to Jehovah. No ! 
JSTo ! We have pictures of philosophers and great 
men of every age, but this is, verily, the picture of 
a God. 

* Neander's Life of Christ 



THE BIBLE DEFENDED 



AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF INFIDELITY. 



Obiecfioiis bq^ed upon ffje 015 Jegfqfoierif. 



GENESIS. 

Gen. i. 1. — In the beginning God created 
the heaven and the earth. 

The first objection brought by geologists against 
the Bible is, that it fixes the date of the original 
creation but six or eight thousand years ago, which 
that science teaches is not true. 

This is a misrepresentation : It declares, simply, 
that God originally " created the heaven and the 
earth," "in the beginning;" but, whether this begin- 
ning was the commencement of time, or when, is not 
said ; how far back it was before the creation of man, 
or before the present geological period, we have no 
data for computation. As this account of the crea- 
tion was merely incidental to the great object of 

(39) 



40 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



revelation, it was not consistent that all its particu- 
lars should be here detailed. 

Gen. i. 2. — And the earth was without form 
and void ; and darkness was upon the face of 
the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon 
the face of the waters. 

" Without form and void" i. e., desolate, confused, 
in a chaotic condition. How long the earth was in 
this chaotic state — or what time elapsed between the 
original creation and this state — or by what pro- 
cesses the world reached this chaotic condition — are 
points upon which we have no revelation ; and it 
does no violence to the text to suppose that, between 
the original creation, and the period introduced 
by the second verse, the earth passed through 
several geological ages. This sufficiently answers 
all objections to the Bible, founded on the extreme 
antiquity of the globe indicated by geology. 

If it be said that there is no evidence of such a 
chaos now discoverable ; that the unbroken succes- 
sion of fossils and geological phenomena — and that 
the old coast line of England, Niagara Falls, &c, 
forbid the supposition of such a chaotic period; we 
reply, 1. That chaos may have been of short dura- 
tion, so as not to interfere with the succession of 
geological phenomena ; 2. The old coast line of 
England, Niagara Falls, and like phenomena, may 
have existed during that chaos, and, at best, the argu- 
ment from their appearances rests upon so slender a 



GENESIS. 



41 



basis, and is open to so many objections as to render 
it very doubtful indeed ; 3. There could be, in the 
nature of the case, no evidence of a chaos left upon 
the globe. 

Previous to entering upon a consideration of the 
succeeding verses, we shall offer a few remarks upon 
the present condition of geology as a science, and 
its relation to the Mosaic account of creation. 

1. Every system of geology now received is open 
to serious objections and insuperable difficulties. 
As a science it is yet in its infancy, and liable to 
constant changes as new facts are discovered. As 
dogmatically as we may assert and maintain our 
theories, they must yield with the advance of know- 
ledge. "A stray splinter of cone-bearing wood 
— a fish's scull or tooth, the vertebra of a reptile, 
the humerus of a bird, the jaw of a quadruped 
— all, any of these things, weak and insignificant as 
they may seem, become in such a quarrel, too strong 
for us and our theory, the puny fragment in the grasp 
of truth forms as irresistible a weapon as the dry 
bone did in that of Samson of old, and our slaughtered 
sophisms lie piled up, 'heaps on heaps,' before it."* 

This should lead us to receive, with great cau- 
tion, the theories and speculations of geologists. 

2. Geology tells us the present condition of the 
earth, but the processes by which it reached that 
condition it does not, and cannot reveal. " It fur- 
nishes no clue by which to unravel the unapproach- 

* Foot Prints, p. 313. 



42 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



able mysteries of creation ; these mysteries belong 
to- the wondrous Creator, and to him only. "VTe 
attempt to theorize npon, and to reduce them to 
law, and all nature rises up against us in our pre- 
sumptuous rebellion."* 

3. " Let it be remembered that there is no absolute 
chronometer in geology, and I very much doubt 
whether there is a fixed relative one among fossili- 
ferous rocks, because there are fossil remains com- 
mon to them all; and again, fossils innumerable .are 
common, both to tertiary and secondary strata ; a fact 
that repudiates the assumed distinction. The statics 
of a sound chronology being absent, prudence would 
require us to be cautious and less dogmatical in a 
science confessedly of intense interest, but compara- 
tively young in age. Besides, fossiliferous rocks are 
local, not circumambient." f 

4. Many of the conclusions of geologists depend 
upon analogical reasoning, which is not always a 
trustworthy mode of argumentation. " Analogy is 
an unsafe ground of reasoning ; and its conclusions 
should be seldom received, without some degree of 
distrust.":): "It may afford a greater or less degree 
of probability, according as the things compared 
are more or less similar in their nature. But it 
ought to be observed, that, as this kind of reasoning 
can afford only probable evidence, at best, so, unless 
great caution be used, we are apt to be led into error 

* Miller's Foot Prints, &c. See note on Gen. viii. 1. 
f Murray's Truth of Revelation. J Hedge's Logic. 



GENESIS. 43 

by it. For we are naturally disposed to conceive a 
greater similitude between things than there really 
is." * 

5. " In order to interpret the Mosaic cosmogony 
aright, another fact to be borne in mind is, that 
every visible object is spoken of, not according to 
its scientific character — that would have been not 
merely improper but impossible, except at the price 
of consistency — but ojitically, or according to its 
appearance; just as, with all our knowledge of the 
solar system, we speak, even in scientific works, of 
the sun as rising and setting. * * * * * And 
if to this optical mode of description it be objected 
that as there ivas no human spectator, the account 
can only be received and interpreted as an allego- 
rical representation, we reply that it is the very 
method of answering its great design — that of being 
popularly intelligible ; and that the way in which it 
becomes both intelligible and vividly graphic is by 
placing the reader, in imagination, in the position of 
a spectator." f 

We have already suggested a mode of removing 
geological objections to the Bible, i e., the supposition 
of an indefinite period between the first and second 
verses of Gen. i. And that all geological changes 
necessary to reduce the world from a state of chaos 
to a condition fit for the residence of man occurred in 

* Jamison's Logic. See also Butler's Ana. Introduc. Chalmers' 
Post. Works, Vol. IX., p. 58, and Upham's Ment. Phil. p. 1, c. XI. 
fMan Primeval, pp. 11, 12. 



44 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGALS'ST INFIDELITY. 

six literal days. This theory originated with Dr. 
Chalmers. Dr. J. P. Smith suggests another. * He 
admits the former, but supposes the chaos mentioned 
in the second verse not to have been universal, but 
local ; confined to a small portion of the earth in 
which man first appeared. This theory obviates the 
objection mentioned under verse second. 

There is another theory which assumes that 
the word day, translated day in the first chapter, 
signifies an indefinite period. In v. 5, it is said, 
" the evening and the morning were the first day, lite- 
rally — one day. The numerical one (Heb. ahad,) is 
used in the sense of certain, peculiar, special; it is so 
used in Dan. viii. 13 : Eze. vii. 5 : Cant. vi. 9 : Gren. 
xxxvii. 20 : 1 Kings xix. 4; xx. 13. 

" Now if this sense may be admitted in the pre- 
sent passage, (Gren. i. 5,) to which we see no valid 
objection, the meaning will be, that the evening and 
the morning constituted a certain, a special, a peculiar 
day, a day sui generis ; in other words, a period of 
time of indefinite length. For that the Heb. yom, 
day, is repeatedly used in the indefinite sense of 
epoch or period, no one will question who is at all 
acquainted with the Scriptural idiom. Thus in the 
very first instance, in which it occurs after the his- 
tory of the six days' work, as if to furnish us with 
authority for such a rendering, we find it employed 
in a collective sense to denote the whole six days' 
period of the creation ; 1 these are the generations 



* Geol. and Gen. 



GENESIS. 



45 



of the heavens and the earth, in the day (beyom) that 
the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.' So 
in Job xviii. 20, it appears to be put for the whole 
period of man's life ; ' they that come after him 
shall be astonied at his day {yomertf and in Isa. xxx. 
8, for all future time ; ' now go note it in a book, 
that it may be for the time to come, (lit. for the latter 
day,) for ever and ever.' In like manner the phrase, 
' the day of the Lord,' so often occurring, undoubt- 
edly denotes a period of indeterminate length. To 
this it may indeed be objected, that the day here 
spoken of is said to have been made up of evening 
and morning; and how, it will be asked, could a 
single evening and morning constitute a day of 
indefinite duration ? To this we reply, that nothing 
is more common in Hebrew than to find the singular 
used in a collective sense equivalent to the plural. 
When it is said, therefore, that 'evening and the 
morning were a certain day,' we understand it as 
equivalent to saying, that a series or succession of 
evenings and mornings (Gr. nuchthemera, twenty- 
four hour days) constituted a peculiar kind of day, a 
period of undefined extent; and so of the subse- 
quent days of the creative week; the sense of the 
common day being really involved in that of the 
other ; or in other words, each of the six indefinite 
days or periods being made up of an equally inde- 
finite number of common or twenty-four hour days. 
It is doubtless under some disadvantages that this 
interpretation is thus briefly and nakedly proposed, 
but as our limits will not allow enlargement, we 



46 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

have no alternative but to leave it to commend itself 
as best it may to the judgment of the reader. By 
the author it has not been rashly adopted." * 

To this it is objected, that the Scriptures state — 
" God made all things in six days and rested on the 
seventh day ; wherefore, Jehovah blessed the Sab- 
bath day and hallowed it ;" but this language does 
not compel us to understand literally the word day. 
A too rigid adherence to the letter of the law would 
involve us in serious difficulties. If nothing more 
nor less than twenty-four hours can be meant by 
the term day, then that whole period must be kept 
as the Sabbath, and every seventh twenty-four 
hours exactly from the beginning ; this would de- 
mand a divine mode of reckoning: moreover, the 
change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first 
day of the week, is, by such rigid interpretation, 
encumbered with serious difficulties. It is said 
God " rested from all his labor" on the seventh day ; 
if this means the seventh twenty-four hours, then it 
would imply that he resumed his labor on the 
eighth day — the beginning of a new week. But 
from what did he rest? Not from the work of 
sustaining and directing the worlds he had made — 
not from the work of providence — but he rested 
(literally ceased) from the work of creation ; and as 
he never resumed that work, he is still resting, or, 
more properly, that cessation still continues during 
this seventh period of time. 



* Bush on Gen., p. 32. 



GENESIS. 



47 



The meaning of the law is, that one- seventh of 
man's time is to be consecrated specially to religious 
worship : this is seen from other sacred seasons, as the 
seventh year, the seventh-seventh year, or Jubilee. 
During six periods of time was God engaged in the 
work of creation, on the seventh he rested ; therefore, 
during six periods, or portions of man's time, may 
he work, but the seventh must be a Sabbath unto 
the Lord. 

We do not wish it to be understood that this 
theory is essentially necessary to reconcile the Mo- 
saic account of creation with a scientific cosmogony; 
we present it as one of the theories of reconciliation ; 
we have alluded to others, and shall notice still 
another in its proper place. 

Gen. i. 3. — And God said let there be light. 

When violent chemical action was excited among 
the chaotic elements, such as would be necessary to 
reduce them to order, there must have been evolved 
in great profusion the imponderable agents — light, 
heat and electricity, which must have encircled the 
globe with a brilliant photosphere. Sir William 
Herschel thought, perhaps, " the Aurora borealis 
and the Aurora australis, the lights which even still 
hover about our earth, where the atmosphere is dry 
and favorable for the exhibition of electrical phe- 
nomena, are faint remains of that light which once 
invested our world." 



48 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

Gen. i. 5. — And God called the light day, 
and the darkness he called night. 

This, says the infidel, cannot be true, as the sun 
was not made until the fourth day, and there could 
be no day without the sun. 

1. This objection assumes a greater knowledge of 
the condition of things at that time than is war- 
ranted by our sources of information. 

2. It is not true that there could be no day with- 
out the sun. 

3. It is not said that the sun, as a body, was 
created on the fourth day, but that it was then ap- 
pointed for a special purpose. It may have existed as 
a part of the solar system before that time. See note 
on Gen. i. 16. 

Gen. i. 11. — And God said, let the earth 
bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and 
the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, 
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth ; and it 
was so. 

Modern chemistry teaches that the first atmos- 
phere must have abounded in carbonic acid, this 
gas being the last to enter into combinations. But 
this was particularly favorable to the development 
of plants. The earth, with its high temperature, 
abundance of water, its atmosphere surrounded by 
a brilliant photosphere and highly charged with 
carbonic acid, afforded intense stimulus to vegeta- 



GENESIS. 



49 



tion, which must have been of a character never 
equalled, for never since have conditions been so 
favorable for its development. This profuse and 
excessive vegetation would soon reduce the atmos- 
phere to a condition fitted for the support of animal 
life. That such a period of gigantic flora did exist 
in the infancy of the world, the researches of geology 
place beyond all doubt. The evidences of it are 
found all through the Paleozoic age. 

Gen. i. 16.— And God made two great 
lights ; the greater light to rule the day, and 
the lesser light to rule the night ; He made 
the stars also. 

Infidels object to this passage, that it makes the 
creation of the sun and planets subsequent to that of 
the earth, which, according to science, could not be. 

But the text teaches us no such thing. It, with 
the context, says, "Grod made two great lights, lite- 
rally lighters or light-bearers, and set or appointed 
them for special purposes therein described." It is 
said, " he made the stars also," but what stars they 
were, or when made, we are not informed. 

Gen. i. 27. — And God made great whales, 
and every living creature that moveth, which 
the waters brought forth abundantly after 
their kind, and every winged fowl after his 

kind ; and God saw that it was good. 

5 



50 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



The earth was now fitted by preceding geological 
processes, not only for the support of animals, but 
for their monstrous growth and rapid multiplication. 
Accordingly, the text seems to speak of the second- 
ary age when, geology tells us, monsters of the 
deep, gigantic birds, enormous reptiles, as ichthyo- 
saurs, plesiasaurs, cetiasaurs, &c, &c, reveled in the 
luxuriant vegetation of the earth, or sported in its 
seas and oceans; and whose huge fossils are found 
throughout the cretaceous, oolitic, trias and carboni- 
ferous formations which make up that age. 

We might point out still further the agreement 
of science with this course of creation, but as we 
have chosen rather to meet the objections of infi- 
delity, we shall pass the subject with this remark. 
"We have accounts of the origin of the world from 
Egyptians, Greeks, Brahmins and Chinese, from 
Sanconiathan to the Edda, yet this account by Moses, 
older than them all, is the only one that agrees with 
modern science. And this simple, unscientific nar- 
rative, written for popular use, is found, after the 
lapse of thousands of years, to accord better with 
the latest developments of science than many scien- 
tific treatises written a century ago. Why is this ? 
Can infidels explain it ? 

It is but just to say, that there are many who do 
not receive either of the foregoing geological theo- 
ries, but believe the creation occupied only six 
literal days, and that all the existing strata were 
formed and deposited in their present position in the 
period between the commencement of the creation 



GENESIS. 



51 



and subsidence of the deluge. This theory is 
opposed to the preceding views, only so far as it 
supposes the final results were brought about not by 
slowly operating natural forces merely, but that the 
processes were accelerated by the interposition of 
divine power. Nor is such an interposition incon- 
sistent with the divine character ; the present struc- 
ture of the earth's crust exerts an important influ- 
ence on the condition of its inhabitants, and is, 
doubtless, the result of causes designed to give it 
that form. It is contended, that all the elements of 
existing strata are not found in the primitive rocks 
from which they are said to be derived ; that no 
known forces could have disintegrated the original 
igneous crust of the earth in any length of time ; 
that no natural forces could have separately deposited 
alumine, silex, salt, lime, coal, &c, or diffused par- 
ticular strata over large spaces ; and that the denu- 
dations and flexions of many strata prove they were 
formed rapidly, in short periods of time. For these 
and other plausible reasons the other theories are 
rejected and a new one formed, which we need not 
detail here. 

Enough has been said, doubtless, to convince the 
reader of two things : — 

1. That these theories, so various — so conflicting 
— yet separately sustained by the most eminent geo- 
logists, proves how little certainty attaches to much 
of the teachings of this science. 

2. That he who asserts (as has been asserted). 



52 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

that geology contradicts the Bible, is ignorant of the 
subject, or utters what he knows to be false. 

Gen. i. 26. — And God said, let us make man 
in our image, after our likeness : and let them 
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and 
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, 
and over all the earth, and every creeping 
thing that creepeth upon the earth. 

It has been said that this text teaches that God 
has such a body as man possesses, and consequently is 
a being of body and parts. This arises from a misun- 
derstanding of the phrase image of God. These 
words signify — 1, the natural image, as an immortal, 
- spiritual being — 2, the moral image, " in righteous- 
ness and true holiness," and 3, the political image, 
having dominion over all the earth. 

Gen. ii. 3. — And God blessed the seventh 
day, and sanctified it : because that in it he 
had rested from all his work which God 
created and made. 

There is no contradiction, as infidels pretend, 
between this text and John v. 7, " My Father work- 
eth hitherto and I work." The former referring to 
a cessation from creating and making, and the latter 
to the ceaseless workings of providence. 

The division of time into periods of seven days 



GENESIS. 



53 



is perfectly arbitrary, depending on no natural phe- 
nomena whatever, yet it is found among Egyptians, 
Greeks, Komans, Goths, Hindoos, &c, &c; a fact 
totally inexplicable but on the ground of the anti- 
quity and authenticity of the Scriptures. 

Gen. ii. 7. — And the Lord God formed man 
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into 
his nostrils the breath of life; and man be- 
came a living soul. 

21. — And the Lord God caused a deep 
sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept ; and he 
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh 
instead thereof. 

22. — And the rib, which the Lord God had 
taken from man, made he a woman, and 
brought her unto the man. 

This account of man's origin is contradictory (as 
a celebrated infidel has asserted), to the account given 
in Gen. i. 27, 28. There is nothing in the one which 
is contrary to the other. 

In the first chapter is stated briefly the fact, that 
God made the first man and woman on the sixth 
day; after closing the general account of creation, 
the writer returns to speak more particularly of the 
mode of their creation, and the habitation assigned 
them; and he does this without contradicting, in the 
slightest degree, any part of his former statement. 
5* 



54 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

Gen. ii. 9. — And out of the ground made 
the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleas- 
ant to the sight, and good for food ; the tree 
of life also in the midst of the garden, and 
the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

The tree of life. Doubtless, so called, because, 
" serving as a visible sign or pledge of the contin- 
uance to him of a blessed natural life, as long as he 
should continue obedient. Regarded in this light 
he undoubtedly often ate of the fruit of the tree 
before his fall, not perhaps as a means of sustaining 
life or of making him immortal, but sacramentally, 
as Christians now eat the Lord's supper, to confirm 
their faith in the divine promises, and as a symbol 
of spiritual blessings imparted to the soul." 

Tree of hwiuledge of good and evil. So called, 
because appointed as the test of his goodness and 
obedience, and through which he came to know evil. 

Gen. ii. 19. — And out of the ground the 
Lord God formed every beast of the field, and 
every fowl of the air, and brought them unto 
Adam to see what he would call them ; and 
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, 
that was the name thereof. 

This has been pronounced " zoologically impos- 
sible;" but the text states that it was done by the 
aid of divine power, which at once obviates all dim- 



GENESIS. 



55 



culties and refutes all objections; for "all tilings are 
possible with God." 

Gen. iii. 14. — And the Lord God said unto 
the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou 
art cursed above all cattle, and above every 
beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou 
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy 
life. 

Infidels have always manifested a great deal of 
sympathy for this serpent. Whether it is a fellow- 
feeling which makes them so wondrous kind, we 
will not say; but certain it is, they have made 
many assaults upon the text and context. Our 
English translators, and ancient tradition, make the 
serpent the intermediate agent of the fall, but there 
is now no means of determining what beast it was. 
Nor is this at all important. The style of his speech, 
the terms of his curse, the prophecy of his conflict 
with the Messiah, and the language of other passages 
referring to him, prove, beyond doubt, that it was 
an intelligent, though evil agent, who assumed a 
bodily form for the purpose of seducing Eve from 
her innocency. To the measure of the curse which 
fell upon the real agent there could be no objection, 
but it has been objected that a beast, incapable of 
sin itself, should suffer for the sin of another. To this 
we reply : — 

1. That it is "in accordance with the usual me- 



66 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

thod of the divine dispensations to put some token 
of displeasure upon the instrument of offence, as 
well as upon the sinner who employs it." Thus the 
beast, with which man sinned, was destroyed with 
the sinner ; Lev. xx. 15. The golden calf was burned ; 
Ex. xxxii. 20. The censors of Korah and his party 
were condemned. By such tokens was God's intense 
abhorrence of sin made manifest. 

2. There was no actual suffering or torture im- 
posed upon the serpent. God certainly had the right 
to fix its position in the scale of animal life. 

3. Dust shalt thou eat This is a figurative expres- 
sion, denoting a debased, groveling condition: — 
" They (the nations) shall lick the dust like a ser- 
pent," that is, be overthrown and disgraced. 

Gen. iii. 16-19. — The penalty of the first sin. 

It has been objected that a penalty of such mag- 
nitude as here described, should be adjudged an 
offence so small. 

" Had he leagured heaven 
With beings powerful, numberless, and dreadful, 
Strong as the enginery that rocks the world, 
When all its pillars tremble, * * * * 
This 

Had been rebellion worthy of the name, 
Worthy of punishment. But what did man ? 
Tasted an apple ! and the fragile scene, 
Eden, and innocence, and human bliss, 
The nectar- flowing streams, life-giving fruits, 
Celestial shades, and amaranthine flowers, 
Vanish ; and sorrow, toil, and pain, and death, 
Cleave to him by an everlasting curse." 



GENESIS. 



57 



1. The commandment was light, but the offence 
was of fearful magnitude. 

2. The very lightness of the commandment — the 
ease with which it might have been kept, only 
aggravated the offence. Had the temptation been 
great, or the burden of the law severe, there might 
have been some ground of complaint. 

3. It was distrusting God's word, and virtually 
charging him with lying and injustice. 

4. It was throwing off all allegiance to him, and 
cutting themselves loose from the sole source of 
happiness and holiness. 

5. It was a disruption of the harmony of the 
moral government upon which hangs the happiness 
of untold millions, and was, so far, an invasion of 
their rights. 

Some have impiously dared to arraign God for 
placing man in a position whence he was liable to 
fall. But he was surrounded by everything con- 
ducive to his happiness and continuance in holiness 
had he so pleased, so that God is not responsible for 
his fall. So far as human conception can reach, it 
was impossible that man should be a probationary 
free agent, and yet be irresistibly prevented from 
sinning. Either he must cease to be a probationer 
or be liable to fall. 

The dissatisfaction which infidels express to this 
account of the origin of evil is very unreasonable. 
We know that evil is in the world. The evidences 
of this are unmistakeable and universal. How did 
it originate? To this question we have no clue 



58 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

aside from the Bible, and without that, it must for- 
ever remain involved in a labyrinth of confusion. 

Gen. iii. 20. — And Adam called his wife's 
name Eve, because she was the mother of all 
living. 

Was or was to be the mother of all living. The 
truth of this is denied by a certain class of ethno- 
logists. It is maintained by them that pictures, 
manuscripts, monuments, crania, and other relics of 
antiquity, prove the existence of several distinct 
races of men as far back as five thousand and six 
thousand years. 

We have not space to enter largely into the dis- 
cussion of this question, and shall, therefore, confine 
our remarks to a few points. 

The above hypothesis depends — L Upon the proof 
that these relics do show the existence of different 
races of men — 2. Upon the proof that these relics 
are of such remote antiquity as is claimed. 

1. Upon the first point we would say simply, that 
it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the 
existence of more than two (white and black) races 
was recognized at any very early period. 

2. Passing this, the whole question must be re- 
garded as resting on the second point — the antiquity 
of these relics. It is thus reduced to a question of 
dates. And here we discover, that our opponents 
stand on very questionable ground. 

Serious alterations have been made in the hiero- 



GENESIS. 



59 



glyphics of Egyptian relics, and false dates imposed 
thereon. See Kev. Des Deux Mondes Ap. 1848, pp. 
66, 77; Jan., 1849, pp. 87, 93. 

Gross errors have also been discovered in Chinese 
and Hindoo manuscripts.* 

The jealousy between rival sects and castes among 
ancient nations, each striving to outstrip the others 
in the antiquity of its traditions and the remoteness 
of its origin, was a fruitful source of error and im- 
position in their records. 

And it may well be doubted too, whether we have 
yet the true key to remove the difficulties of orien- 
tal computation, and unlock the chronological mys- 
teries of antiquity. 

These considerations vitally affect the theory of 
our ethnologists, while, on the other hand, the evi- 
dence of the antiquity and authenticity of the Bible 
is irrefutable and complete. 

But there is another theory of the races, that of 
Professor Agassiz, which classifies and distributes 
mankind upon a geographical basis, after the man- 
ner of De Candolle's distribution of plants.f In 
this system each zone has its peculiar fauna and 
flora, — its own beasts, birds, and races of men. This 
theory is based upon the assumption, that each spe- 
cies of animals and birds was produced in the locality 
assigned it, but of this we have no proof. Moreover, 

* See note on Gen. viii. 7. 

f See Chris. Examiner, 1850. Types of Mankind. Gould and 
Agassiz's Zoology. 



60 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



the theory is very imperfect ; men, beasts and birds, 
having so migrated as to render it almost impossible 
to fix the locality of some races and species. 

But admitting the facts of this theory, they do 
not necessarily preclude the unity of the races. If 
it be said, that we know of no natural causes which 
could produce the different races from the original 
stock ; it may be also said, that we know of no natural 
causes that would produce men and women sponta- 
neously in different localities, so it is not more 
unphilosophical to attribute the differences to natu- 
ral causes operating on the primitive stock, than to 
suppose, as does M. Agassiz, men and women grew 
up spontaneously. 

But we shall prove that the different races origin- 
ated from the primitive stock, by a direct exercise 
of divine power. If this be objected to as a miracle, 
we reply, that Almighty God, as the first cause, 
must have originated the races by some means or 
other, and it is not less a miracle to form them 
separately in different localities, than to produce them 
from an original and uniform stock. 

We shall take up this discussion again, and sub- 
mit the proof above alluded to when we come to 
consider Gen. xi. 8. In the mean while, we leave 
the subject with this remark. If natural history 
teaches that there now exist races of men so differ- 
ent in complexion, features, osteological formation, 
cuticular secretions, &c, as to forbid the supposition 
that they proceeded from one head by the course of 
natural generation, the Bible teaches as plainly and 



GENESIS. 



Gl 



positively, that Eve was the mother of all living 
men. Now to receive one of these propositions does 
not necessarily imply the rejection of the other. The 
natural historian need not reject the Bible, nor the 
believer in the Bible repudiate natural historv. If 
both propositions are true, then there is some mode 
of reconciling them, even though that mode were 
now to us unknown. It would be the part of wis- 
dom to acknowledge the truth, and wait for further 
light to see our way out of the difficulties involv- 
ing it. 

Gen. iv. 16. — And Cain went out from the 
presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land 
of Nod on the east of Eden. 

It has been urged from this text, that the Bible 
teaches the Lord is in some places and not in others. 
This is not true. To seek the Lord, to stand before or 
in the presence of the Lord, to draw near the Lord, &c, 
are phrases used to express religious worship, and 
before the Lord, the presence of the Lord, sometimes 
denote the places or localities where such worship 
was performed, and where there were special mani- 
festations of divine power. Cain went out from the 
place of worship and of divine manifestation. 

Gen. iv. 17. — And Cain knew his wife, and 
she conceived, and bare Enoch. 

"Where could he have got a wife?" it has been 
6 



62 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

triumphantly asked ; " no daughters of the first pair 
are mentioned until after the birth of Seth. 7 ' But 
this does not prove that they had none. Is it probable 
that this perfect and vigorous pair could have had 
but three children in one hundred and thirty years ? 
This would be a very absurd position to take. The 
presumption is they had many children. It is dis- 
tinctly asserted, (Gren. v. 4,) that Adam " begat sons 
and daughters," meaning doubtless, sons and daugh- 
ters not named in any catalogue of his children, 
and this must have been before as well as after the 
birth of Seth. Nor did Cain commit sin by marry- 
ing his sister ; there was a necessity for such mar- 
riages at that time, and the law forbidding them had 
not been given, and without law there was no sin. 

Gen. v. 27.— And all the days of Methu- 
selah were nine hundred sixty and nine years; 
and he died. 

The longevity of the ancients is abundantly 
proved by profane history. (See Burnet's Theory, 
b. ii., chap, iv.: Stackhouse on Gren.: Historia Sinica 
Martinu : Du Halde's China, vol. i.) 

Gen. vi. 4. — There were giants in the earth 
in those days ; and also after that, when the 
Sons of God came in unto the daughters of 
men. and they bare children to them, the same 



GENESIS. 



63 



became mighty men, which were of old, men 
of renown. 

"We need scarcely say, that the text itself gives 
no countenance to the monstrous notion of an illicit 
intercourse between angelic beings and the children 
of earth; this is a fragment of mythology which 
has been unnaturally grafted upon it, and the ridi- 
cule to which the Bible has been subject in conse- 
quence is, therefore, altogether misplaced. The 
phrase, Sons of God, designates God's pious and 
worshiping people: — Job, i. 6. ii, 1: Hos. i. 10: 
Jno. i. 12. The word rendered giants signifies also 
fallen men; hence, some understand the text to 
teach, that unequal marriages between the pious and 
the wicked resulted in great apostacy, and in a race 
of cruel, warring men. 

It is true, however, that giants did exist in the 
earlier ages of the world. Rees' Cyclo., art. Giant : 
Huctui's Inquiries, b. ii. : Aug. De Civ. Dei. vi. 15 : 
Pliny, vi. 1. 

Gen. vi. 6. — And it repented the Lord that 
he had made man on the earth, and it grieved 
him at his heart. 

In several passages of Scripture God is said, as 
above, to repent ; yet, it is said also most positively, 
that he cannot repent. It is obvious, therefore, that 
the word repent can not be used in these two classes 
of texts in the same sense. The above text is a 



64 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



figurative expression adapted to the simplest intel- 
lects, and none but the most obstinate could stumble 
over it. 

Gen. viii. 1-24.— The Deluge. 

This is one of the most severely contested facts of 
revelation. It must certainly be regarded as an ex- 
traordinary event, unequalled in the annals of man, 
and not to be judged by the ordinary laws and ope- 
rations of nature. It was brought about and accom- 
plished by omnipotence. This, at once, vacates all 
science, and removes all objections from that source. 
It is above and beyond the domain of science, and 
is not to be criticised by scientific principles. On 
this ground we are not bound to notice any objec- 
tions to it as unphilosophical. Yet we know of no 
valid objection from any department of science to 
the fact of a universal deluge. True, great names 
in geology have doubted or denied it, but names 
equally great have given credence to it. 

It must be remembered, however, that geology is 
not a system of demonstrated truths, but of deduc- 
tions, inferences and assumptions, based upon or 
drawn from a limited view of certain physical phe- 
nomena on the earth's crust. The science is conse- 
quently imperfect, and liable to constant changes. 

Geologists, too, have great fondness for large 
numbers and imposing speculations, often putting 
thousands of years where hundreds would answer 
the purpose. In the fascinations of their study, 



GENESIS. 



65 



and their intense solicitude for their theories, the pet 
children of their brains, they are apt to forget the 
integrity of the Word. 

But whatever may be the theories and inferences 
of geologists, no single ascertained fact of geology can 
be adduced as direct testimony against the fact of a 
universal deluge. This is our deliberate conviction 
after a careful examination of opposing arguments 
and theories. 

The language clearly indicates that the deluge 
was accompanied with extraordinary physical phe- 
nomena. "The windows of heaven were opened" — 
stupendous cataracts poured from above ; " the 
fountains of the great deep were broken up," &c, 
signifying, doubtless, the upheaval of earth's crust, 
the displacement of ocean beds, the sinking of 
mountains, and the burial at once and forever of all 
relics of that guilty race, whose dark and damning 
sins called down such terrible retribution. 

It has been said that the ark could not contain a 
pair of all the species of animals. But who dare 
limit the resources of almighty power and infinite 
wisdom ? What, would you make a miracle of it ? 
says the objector. Certainly, it was in character 
and design unquestionably miraculous, and we 
would as soon apply the tests of science to the turn- 
ing of water into wine, (Jno. ii.) or the raising of 
Lazarus from the dead. (Jno. xi. 43.) 

Yet the objection is of little force. There are in 
all two hundred and fifty thousand species of li vino- 
animals, but of these are excluded, of course, all 
6* 



66 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



that live in water, aquatic and amphibious. Per- 
haps we might also exclude all whose spawn or 
larvae could be preserved, and many oviparous ani- 
mals might be kept in the egg instead of living 
specimens. Be this as it may, we thus dispose of 
all the radiates, mollusks, articulates, and verte- 
brates, the whole class of fishes, and most, if not all, 
of reptiles. This leaves the mammals, numbering 
something over twelve hundred, perhaps as high as 
fifteen hundred, and birds, embracing five thousand 
species ; from the former, we, of course, exclude 
all whales or cetacians, which greatly reduces the 
whole number. 

The ark is estimated at over thirty thousand tons 
burden, or more than equal to eighteen first class 
packet ships. So there can be no reasonable doubts 
as to its capacity to carry everything necessary to 
its purpose. 

It has been objected that these animals, from 
climates the extremes of heat and cold, could not 
live in one locality; this will be sufficiently an- 
swered by a visit to any of our extensive mena- 
geries. 

The fact of a universal deluge has been disputed 
upon the ground, that some ancient records run 
back anterior to the date of the deluge, as ascer- 
tained from Scripture. These records are from three 
sources — China, India, and Egypt. But we have 
already shown, in our remarks on Gen. iii. 20, how 
little confidence can be placed in these records. 
The nations of old were strongly disposed to carry 



GENESIS. 



6? 



their traditions back to a fabulous antiquity, and to 
claim their origin from the gods. Bunsen admits this 
in the case of the Egyptians, — see Egypt's place in 
Uni. Hist. See also Chronologie der Egypter, Hand- 
buch der Chronologie, Cosmos, &c. 

That Egyptian monuments were altered in the 
times of the Pharaohs, may be satisfactorily seen by 
reference to Kevue des Deux Mondes, 1847, p. 1028 
— 1849, p. 93, and Poole's Horse Egyptiacae. See 
also for the antiquity of the Chinese, GutziafFs 
China Opened. 

" Traditions of a general deluge have been found 
among all nations of the ancient world, and disse- 
minated among modern nations in the most distant 
and opposite parts of the earth, and in all their dif- 
ferent degrees of civilization. Wherever there is 
any attempt to account for the existence of the pre- 
sent population, it begins with the preservation of 
one pair of human beings, or a single family, by 
some floating vessel. This is usually connected 
with a previously existing race — with the anger of 
the supreme being against their sins — and with the 
desolation of the earth, and the race of men, by a 
general inundation. 

"There are no conflicting traditions. The har- 
mony among all nations is such as could have 
arisen only from the fact itself. We find Chaldeans, 
Phoenicians, Assyrians, Persians, Chinese, Hindoos, 
Mexicans, Peruvians, North Americans, Islanders 
of Oceanica, all preserving in their mythologies or 
their histories, the principal facts recorded by Moses. 



68 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

They all embody one story" — Bedford's Holy Scrip, 
verified. See also Cyclo. Bib. Lit., vol. L, p. 542 : 
Faber's Orig. Pagan Idol. L, p. 206, 218; Asiat. Ee- 
searches ; Mitford's Greece, Humboldt's Kesearches. 

Gen. xi. 1-9. — The confusion of tongues. 

TVe have here an account of the building of the 
tower of Babel ; the confusion of tongues, and the 
dispersion of mankind over the earth. The in- 
spired historian had already stated, in the preceding 
chapter, that men were divided into distinct nations 
and dispersed through the world ; in this place he 
details more particularly the cause of that dispersion. 
Here we have the origin of the languages, as well 
as the races of men. The chief ground of distinc- 
tion between the different races is found in the con- 
stitutional peculiarities which adapt them to their 
different localities. 

It is said in the text, that "the Lord scattered 
the people abroad upon the face of all the earth ;" 
this being true, he must, at the same time, have 
given them a physical adaptation to the several por- 
tions of the earth whither they were sent. The 
different races originated then from one primitive 
stock by the exercise of divine power. At a sub- 
sequent period (Gen. xv. 11-12), there was another 
divine interposition producing from one father two 
races, the Jews and Arabs, widely differing from 
each other. Thus it is, that revelation alone solves 
the problem of the races, and establishes the fact of 
their common origin. 



GENESIS. 



69 



Independent of the history of the origin of man- 
kind, the Bible further proves the unity of the races, 
by the relation which all men sustain to their first 
head, as indicated in the consequences of his trans- 
gression, &c. — by the relation which all men sustain 
to Christ, as their common Kedeemer, and to the 
scheme of salvation — by positive and direct decla- 
rations, as, Gen. iii. 20 : Acts xvii. 26, &c. 

Gen. xii. 11-13. — And it came to pass, when 
he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he 
said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know 
thou art a fair woman to look upon : therefore 
it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians 
shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his 
wife: and they will kill me, but they will 
save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou 
art my sister : that it may be well with me 
for thy sake ; and my soul shall live because 
of thee. 

There can be no question but that Abram did 
wrong here, but neither the Divine being, nor the 
writer of this book, is responsible for his fault. 
There is not the slightest approval of his act. It is 
given simply as an historical fact — and that these 
failings of God's servants are so impartially related 
in the Bible, without any attempt at palliation or 



7 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

concealment, is strong proof of its historical truth 
fulness. 

Gen. xiii. 7. — And there was a strife be 
tween the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and tho 
herdsmen of Lot's cattle : and the Canaanite 
and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land. 

It has been argued that this passage must have 
been written after the Canaanites were driven out 
of the land. But it is said " the land was not able to 
bear" Abram and Lot, for the reason that "the Ca- 
naanite and Perizzite dwelled in the land;" there 
fras not room for them and these heathen. 

Again, the Jews expected the heathen nations to 
be driven out of Canaan, according to God's promise. 

Gen. xiv. 14. — And when Abram heard 
that his brother was taken captive he armed 
his trained servants, born in his own house, 
three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them 
unto Dan. 

It has been assumed that there was no city called 
Dan, until the time of the Judges, (Jud. xviii. 27, 
29), consequently Genesis was not written till after 
the Judges. We reply — 

1. The text does not say Dan was a city ; it may 
have been a stream (one of the sources of Jordan), 
or a district of country. 



GENESIS. 



71 



2. There were two Dans ; Dan-Laish, above named, 
and Dan-Jaan (2 Sam. xxiv. 6), the affixes serving 
to distinguish them. 

Gen. xix. 8. — Behold now, I have two 
daughters which have not known man; let 
me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and 
do ye to them as is good in your eyes : only 
unto these men do nothing ; for therefore came 
they under the shadow of my roof. 

Lot's offer of his daughters to the vicious mob 
which beset his house, though it shows how invio- 
lable he regarded the laws of hospitality, can not 
be justified on any sound or safe principles. Nor is 
there any attempt to justify it in the Scriptures. It 
is stated as a part of history. 

Gen. xix. 26. — But his wife looked back 
from behind him, and she became a pillar of 
salt. 

This has been a matter of much ridicule with 
infidels. It is worthy of remark, however, that 
Lieutenant Lynch saw upon the shores of the Dead 
Sea " a pillar of salt capped with carbonate of 
lime," which the tradition of the place says is Lot's 
wife. 

Gen. xxii. 1. — And it came to pass, after 
these things God did tempt Abraham. 



72 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

This is said to contradict James i. 13. " Let no 
man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God, for 
God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth 
he any man." But the word tempt is in these pas- 
sages nsed in different senses. God does tempt or 
try providentially his servants, but he never solicits a 
man to sin. 

Gen. xxii. 1-18. — The offering of Isaac. 

This occurrence has been denounced as unworthy 
of God, who is said to order it. But the circum- 
stance is fully justified by its design and results. 
Not only was Abraham proved, but his faith was 
greatly strengthened. He complied with the divine 
requisition, believing that God would deliver his 
son (Heb. xi. 19), and when that deliverance was 
wrought he could not but trust him more implicitly 
than ever. See page 88. 

Gen. xxiii. 2. — And Sarah died in Kirjath 
Arba; the same is Hebron. 

As the Hebrews called Kirjath- Arba Hebron, 
after they had taken it, the text is supposed to have 
been written after that event. There is no difficulty 
in admitting the latter clause of the text to be the 
work of some transcriber; but the original name 
of the city was Aebron, and this name was restored 
after its capture by the Israelites, because of its 
patriarchal associations. 



GENESIS. 



73 



•Gen. xxxiv. 7. — And the sons of Jacob 
came out of the field when they heard it ; 
and the men were grieved, and they were 
very wroth, because he had wrought folly in 
Israel. 

It is contended that this conld not have been 
written until after Palestine was called Israel. The 
phrase in Israel does not mean the land but the 
family of Israel. 

Gen. xxxvi. 2-3. — Esau's wives. 

There is an apparent discrepancy between this 
account of Esau's wives, and that in chap. xxvi. 
34 ; it must be borne in mind, however, that in the 
east different names were often applied to one per- 
son. Esau had three wives, and each of them is 
spoken of under two names, making six names for 
them all. 

Gen. xxxvi. 31. — And these are the kings 
that reigned in the land of Edom, before there 
reigned any kings over the children of Israel. 

" The writer of this," says an infidel work now 
. before me, " must have lived at a period when kings 
were common in Israel." But this does not follow 
necessarily ; kings had been promised to Israel (Gen. 
xxxv. 11), and were expected; moreover, the text 
7 



74 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



states simply there were kings in Edom when there 
were none in Israel. 

Gen. xlviii. 7. — And Israel beheld Joseph's 
sons, and said, who are these ? * * * * 

10. — (Now the eyes of Israel were dim for 
age, so that he could not see.) 

This passage has been unjustly treated as a con- 
tradiction. Israel's eyes were so dim, that though 
he could discern Joseph's sons at some distance, he 
could not see them distinctly or recognize them, 
hence, his inquiry and the necessity of bringing 
them near. How blind, or dishonest, is infidelity ! 



EXODUS. 



Ex. ii. 16. — And when they came to Reuel 
their father, he said, How is it that ye are 
come so soon to-day ? 

In v. 27, it is said, this Eeuel became Moses' 
father-in-law, but in chap. hi. 1, his father-in-law 
is called Jethro, and in Num. x. 29, Eaguel is said to 
be his father-in-law. These are not contradictions ; 
the several names belonging to one and the same 
person ; a custom very prevalent in the east. 

Ex. vi. 2. — And God spake unto Moses, and 
said unto him, I am the Lord, 

3. — And I appeared unto Abraham, unto 
Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God 
Almighty ; but by my name Jehovah was I 
not known to them. 

Infidels have asserted that this verse contradicts 
Gen. xxii. 14, "And Abraham called the name of 
that place Jehovah-jireh." 

1. Abraham appropriated this name to a place, 
not to God. 

(75) 



76 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

2. The name God (Elohim) is used in the earlier 
books of the Bible, to designate the deity in a 
general sense, as the Creator, — a God of power ; the 
name Lord (Jehovah), designates him in a special 
sense, as manifesting himself in providence and 
grace, — a God of goodness and mercy. The text 
reads — "And God {Elohim) spake unto Moses, and 
said unto him, I am the Lord {Jehovah), and I ap- 
peared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, 
by the name of God Almighty {El Shaddai); but 
by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." 
Not that the bare word was unknown to them, but 
its import — its full meaning, as designating a God of 
providence, making himself known in the deliver- 
ance and support of his people (as he was just 
about to do for the Israelites), this was not known 
to them. 

Ex. vii. 3. — And I will harden Pharaoh's 
heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders 
in the land of Egypt. 

In objecting to this passage, infidel writers have 
usually placed it in a false light, viz., that God 
hardened Pharaoh's heart and then punished him 
for his hardness of heart. We shall submit several 
thoughts on the whole subject involved, which may, 
perhaps, enable us to form a more correct estimate 
of the text and its connections. 

1. Pharaoh is here dealt with not in his personal, 
but in his official character; as the representative, 



EXODUS. 



77 



and an integral part of a guilty nation, who, for 
centuries, had oppressed God's people and crushed 
them in merciless bondage. Their crimes had long 
and loudly called for vengeance, while the prolonged 
period of mercy aggravated their guilt, and the 
hour of retribution had now come. If at this point, 
Pharaoh yields and allows the Israelites to go in 
peace, he and his guilty people will escape their 
merited punishment, and the end of justice be de- 
feated. This shows at once that the hardening of 
his heart was a judicial act, — a part of the terrible 
judgment to which he had made himself obnoxious. 

2. In hardening his heart God did not create any 
evil there, the evil already existed ; it was simply 
bringing to sight what had a being in concealment ; 
or rather, it was making apparent in a certain way 
what had been previously developing itself in an- 
other. This, in the ways of providence, is often a 
powerful means of bringing the wicked to a sense 
of their condition and effecting their conversion. 

3. In hardening his heart God did not aggravate 
the evil existing there. Nothing was added to the 
degree of wickedness already possessed. God may 
render "a man incapable of receiving grace, in 
order to mitigate his guilt ; for, if the man in ques- 
tion had the eyes of his spirit open, were he aware 
what was offered to him and yet resisted, he were a 
far greater subject of punishment than without this 
capability he could be."* Furthermore, when a 
man's sin reaches that degree of intensity which 

* <J] shaken, 

7* 



78 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

constitutes the sin against the Holy Ghost, the spirit 
may be withdrawn, and the man's heart thus be 
hardened without there being any aggravation of 
his wickedness on the part of God. 

These considerations, we think, obviate the objec- 
tion to this passage usually made by infidels. 

Ex. vii. 11. — Then Pharaoh also called the 
wise men and the sorcerers : now the magi- 
cians of Egypt, they also did in like manner 
with their enchantments. 

Unbelievers have depended upon this passage for 
proof that the magicians performed miracles as well 
as Moses. But iu every instance in which they 
attempt to compete with Moses, they fall infinitely 
below him, and at last give up the attempt, confess- 
ing that "the finger of God" was with him. "When, 
therefore, infidels summon these magicians against 
the miracles of Moses, they are bound to stand by 
the testimony of their witnesses, which is conclusive 
against themselves. 

As this is the first recorded instance of miracles 
wrought by the agency of man, we shall offer a few 
remarks upon that topic. A miracle is a suspension 
of, or deviation from the laws of nature, wrought 
mediately, or immediately by Almighty God in 
proof of some particular doctrine, or to attest the 
authority of some particular person. The objec- 
tions to miracles, now usually advanced, are from 



EXODUS. 



79 



Yoltaire and Hume. The former says : " It is im- 
possible that God, a being infinitely wise, should 
make laws in order to violate them — that the world 
must have been so constructed in the beginning as 
to preclude the necessity of subsequent changes." 

This is raising a false issue, God does not make 
laws to violate them, and miracles neither suppose 
nor imply any such thing. 

Again, if it is impossible for God to suspend or 
deviate from the course of nature, then his power is 
limited ; he is circumscribed by material existences ; 
he is not infinite ; in other words, he is not God and 
there is no God ; if it is possible for him to do these, 
then the objection has no force. 

The position of Mr. Hume was more bold than 
this but not more reasonable. He says : " No tes- 
timony for any kind of miracle can ever possibly 
amount to a probability, much less to a proof." 

That is to say — God can never make a revelation 
of his will to man. For such a revelation must of 
necessity be accompanied by some evidence of its 
superhuman origin, which would be a miracle. The 
course of reasoning, by which Mr. Hume was led to 
the above conclusion is, in substance, as follows : — ■ 
The credit we give to human testimony is based 
upon our experience, which also proves that men 
sometimes testify falsely, but our experience in the 
laws of nature proves they are constant and uni- 
form. A miracle, therefore, contradicts all expe- 
rience. False testimony is not contrary to experience, 
therefore, it is easier to believe the testimony is false 



80 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



than to believe the miracle it is brought to prove is 

true. 

This argument contains several very unsound 
statements. 

1. It is not true, that our belief in human testi- 
mony depends solely upon our experience. Gene- 
rally, those having the least experience are most 
ready to receive human testimony, as in the instance 
of children. 

2. It is not true that miracles are contrary to 
experience. To whose experience does he mean? 
His own ? He is not to decide for all. To the uni- 
versal experience of mankind ? This is his mean- 
ing, but how are we to get at this experience ? By 
appealing to history? History says miracles are 
true. 

3. The argument of Mr. Hume begs the question. 
If he says miracles are contrary to our experience, 
we admit it, but that proves nothing. That such 
things have never occurred to us does not prove 
they never occurred to others. If he says they are 
contrary to the experience of those among whom 
they are said to have transpired, we reply, this is 
the very point to be proved, and we want proof, not 
assertion. 

4. But we would turn Mr. Hume's argument 
against himself. It is contrary to experience that 
any book, bearing such a mass of external and inter- 
nal testimony of truthfulness, as does the Bible, 
should prove false, therefore it must be true. 



EXODUS. 



81 



Ex. xi. 2. — Speak now in the ears of the 
people, and let every man borrow of his neigh- 
bor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels 
of silver, and jewels of gold. 

1. Upon the face of this infidels have charged the 
Israelites with being a nation of thieves. It is a 
sufficient answer to this, to say that, if God com- 
manded them to do this thing, that gave them full 
right and title to the articles received, for, "the 
earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." 

2. But there is no evidence that the Israelites 
designed to deceive the Egyptians; everything in 
the narrative goes to show that the people expected 
to return, and were perfectly honest in thus dealing 
with their neighbors. 

3. The word borrowed is rendered ask in Psa. ii. 8. 
In the three passages relative to this transaction 
(chap. iii. 22, xi. 2, xii. 35), the LXX. has shall aslc, 
and it was so in the English Bible till the edition 
of Becke, in 1549 ; the Geneva, Barker's and some 
others, having aske. According to this, the injunc- 
tion seems to have been that the Israelites should 
ask a restoration of that property of which they 
had been wrongfully despoiled. This seems to be 
intimated also in chap. iii. 22, where the word ren- 
dered spoil signifies regain or recover, and is so used 
in Sam. xxx. 22. 

4. Dr. Clarke has ably argued that there could be 
no borrowing in the case, because, if accounts were 



82 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

fairly balanced, Egypt would be in considerable 
arrears to Israel, having owed its policy, its opu- 
lence, and even its political existence to the Israelites, 
and for all this the latter received no compensation 
whatever, but were cruelly abused and obliged to 
witness, as the sum of their calamities, the murder 
of their male children. 

Ex. xii. 40. — Now the sojourning of the 
children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was for 
a hundred and thirty years. 

The difference between this text and Gen. xv. 13, 
is accounted for by considering the different data 
from which they are computed. 

Ex. xiv. 22. — And the children of Israel 
went into the midst of the sea upon the dry 
ground: and the waters were a wall unto 
them on their right hand, and on their left. 

As the passage of the Eed Sea, described in this 
verse and the context, was a miraculous event 
wrought by Almighty God, no valid objections can 
be brought against it upon scientific grounds, and 
all attempts to explain it upon natural principles 
are uncalled for and without proof. The sacred 
narrative of the event is corroborated by ancient 
history and tradition. 



EXODUS. 



S3 



Ex. xx. 5. — Thou shalt not bow down thy- 
self to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord 
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniqui- 
ties of the fathers upon the children unto the 
third and fourth generation of them that hate 
me. 

Infidels can not relieve themselves of the fact 
herein expressed, though they object to the text; 
with or without the Bible, it still remains a fact. 
In the diseased constitutions, dishonored names and 
broken fortunes of many around us, we see daily 
the evidences of its truthfulness. 

This entailment of the physical consequences of 
sin seems to be all that is comprehended in the above 
threatening. See Eze. xviii., especially the 19 v. — 
"Yet ye say, Why doth not the son bear the iniquity 
of the father ? When the son hath done that which 
is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, 
and hath done them, he shall surely live." 

Ex. xxii. 18. — Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
to live. 

The objection to this law, as unnecessarily severe, 
loses sight of the fact, that besides plundering and 
robbing others, they were, under the Jewish theo- 
cracy, guilty of both blasphemy and treason. 

Ex. xxiv. 4. — And Moses wrote all the 
words of the Lord. 



84 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

There is no contradiction in this to verse 12, 
where the Lord is said to have written them ; it is 
evident from the context they were written by both. 

Ex. xxxiii. 23. — And I will take away my 
hand, and thou shalt see my back parts : but 
my face shall not be seen. 

This means that there shonld be a diminished 
view of God's glory allowed to Moses. 

Ex. xxxii. 3. — And all the people brake off 
the golden ear-rings which were in their ears, 
and brought them unto Aaron. 

4. — And he received them at their hand, 
and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he 
had made it a molten calf. 

Infidels have disputed the truth of this, on the 
ground that a calf of gold could not be got up in a 
single day. To this we reply — 

1. There is nothing in the narrative which inti- 
mates that it was done in one day or two ; so these 
objectors (Collins, Tindall, &c.) were fighting a man 
of straw of their own make. 

2. The text does not say the image was of solid 
gold ; it was, doubtless, only covered with that metal. 

The part which Aaron took in this transaction 
was forced upon him (v. i. 22, 23), and that he met 
not the punishment due his sin, was owing to his re- 
pentance, which is evident in his subsequent conduct. 



LEVITICUS. 



A gkeat deal of infidel ridicule has been expended 
upon the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Jewish 
church, described in this and other sacred books. 
They have been denounced as silly, senseless, and 
unworthy the origin ascribed to them. All such 
objections, however, are founded in ignorance of the 
circumstances under which these rites originated and 
the true philosophy of the mind. 

In their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, the 
Israelites had seen abundant manifestations of God's 
goodness and mercy, and to some extent his justice. 
But God is a holy being, and it was essential to 
them to know this, yet living, as they had been, in 
the midst of idolatry, they could have no conception 
of this attribute. And how could the idea of God's 
holiness be impressed upon the mind of that nation? 
As holiness is an abstract idea, and can reach the 
mind through the senses only, it is very evident, 
that it must be conveyed to them through the me- 
dium of sensible things. Hence it was, that every 
rite connected with the Jewish order of worship, as 
divinely instituted, conveyed to them the idea of pu- 
rity and holiness, and transferred that idea to God. 
Take, for illustration, the offering of sacrifices. 
8 (85) 



86 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

" In the outset, the animals common to Palestine 
were divided, by command of Jehovah, into clean 
and nnclean ; in this way a distinction was made, 
and the one class, in comparison with the other, was 
deemed to be of a purer and better kind. From 
the class thus distinguished, as more pure than the 
other, one was selected to offer as a sacrifice. It was 
not only to be chosen from the clean beasts, but, as 
an individual, it was to be without spot or blemish. 
Thus it was, in their eyes, purer than the other class, 
and purer than other individuals of its own class. 
This sacrifice the people were not deemed worthy, 
in their own persons, to offer to Jehovah ; but it 
was to be offered by a class of men who were dis- 
tinguished from their brethren, purified, and set 
apart for the service of the priest's office. Thus 
the idea of purity originated from two sources; the 
purified priest and the pure animal purified, were 
united in the offering of the sacrifice. But before 
the sacrifice could be offered, it was washed with 
clean water — and the priest had ; in some cases, to 
wash himself, and officiate without his sandals. 
Thus, when one process of comparison after another 
had attached the idea of superlative purity to the 
sacrifice — in offering it to Jehovah, in order that the 
contrast between the purity of God, and the highest 
degrees of earthly purity might be seen, neither 
priest, nor people, nor sacrifice, was deemed suffi- 
ciently pure to come into his presence; but the 
offering was made in the court without the holy of 
holies. In this manner, by a process of comparison, 



LEVITICUS. 



87 



the character of God, in point of purity, was placed 
indefinitely above themselves and their sacrifices. 

"And not only in the sacrifices, but throughout 
the whole Levitical economy, the idea of purity per- 
vaded all its ceremonies and observances. The 
camp was purified — the people were purified — every- 
thing was purified and re-purified ; and each process 
of the ordinances was designed to reflect purity upon 
the others, until, finally, that idea of purity formed 
in the mind and rendered intense by the conver- 
gence of so many rays, was, by comparison, referred 
to the idea of God — and the idea of God in their 
minds, being that of an infinitely powerful and good 
spirit ; hence, purity, as a characteristic or attribute 
of such a nature, would necessarily assume a moral 
aspect, because it appertained to a moral being — it 
would become moral purity or holiness. Thus they 
learned, in the sentiment of Scripture, that God was 
of too pure eyes to look upon iniquity." (Philos. 
of the Plan of Salva., pp. 75-95.) 

In the same way, by the severity of the penalties 
affixed to the transgression of divine law, was the idea 
of God's justice impressed upon and kept before 
their minds. Thus in their consummate adaptation 
to the constitution of the mind as then developed, 
the Jewish ritual and laws bear unmistakeable evi- 
dence of their divine origin. 

Lev. xxvii. 29. — None devoted, which shall 
be devoted of men, shall be redeemed ; but 
shall surely be put to death. 



88 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

Voltaire relies upon this passage to show that 
God, according to the Jews, demanded human sacri- 
fices — (Philo. Diet. art. Jephtha.) This, however, is 
a gross perversion of language. Sacrifices, are not 
named in the text ; the phrase put to death is cot 
equivalent to offer as sacrifice, and can not be so 
understood. It teaches that those devoted to de- 
struction by the penal lierem, or solemn anathema, 
denounced by public or divine authority, could not 
be redeemed."* 

That human sacrifices were abhorrent to God is 
sufficiently clear from the case of Abraham. When 
his faith had been tried, his hand was stayed — he 
was not allowed to offer his son, but another victim 
was provided. And why ? Because such an offer- 
ing was displeasing to Jehovah. 

If further proof on this point were necessary, we 
might quote Deut. xii. 29-32, where the Israelites 
are forbidden to do unto the Lord, as the heathens 
do to their gods, and the offering of human sacri- 
fices are specified as particularly abhorrent to the 
Divine Being. 



* Jahn. 



NUMBERS. 



Num. xii. 3. — Now the man Moses was very 
meek, above all the men which were upon the 
face of the earth. 

This has been condemned as a degree of self- 
praise inconsistent with the measure of meekness 
claimed. The word rendered meek primarily means 
oppressed, and " has the accessory idea of humility, 
meekness ; i e., the humble, the meek, who prefer to 
suffer wrong than to do wrong."* This, under the 
circumstances, he was justifiable in saying of himself. 

Num. xiv. 30. — Doubtless ye shall not come 
into the land concerning which I sware to 
make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son 
of Jephunneh, and Joshua, the son of Nun. 

The promise of this land to the generation here 
addressed was conditional, they, failing on their part 
of the conditions, forfeited the promise. Caleb and 
Joshua are particularly excepted, the priests were 
also excepted, but are not here named, because pro- 
bably not present on the occasion. 



8* 



• Gc senius. 



(89) 



90 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



Num. xiv. 34. and ye shall know 

my breach of promise. 

The marginal reading is — the altering of my pur- 
pose. The promises of God are conditional, though 
the conditions are not always expressed. The fail- 
ure to comply with the conditions of a promise, will 
result in a corresponding failure to receive the pro- 
mise. " And at what instant I shall speak concern- 
ing a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build 
and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it 
obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good, 
w T herewith I said I would benefit them" (Jer. xviii. 
9-10) ; that is, — I will change my purpose — / will not 
grant the promise. This is all that is meant by breach 
of promise above. See Eze. xviii. 21, and xxxiii. 11. 

Num. xxii. 22. — And God's anger was kin- 
dled because he went. 

This is said of Balaam, yet in v. 20, it is said 
God told him to go. There is no inconsistency 
between these two passages. Balaam was originally 
commanded in most peremptory terms not to go ; 
instead of obeying instantly and faithfully he yielded 
to the temptation offered (v. 17), and persuaded the 
messengers of Balak to remain all night (v. 19), 
doubtless, to give the proposition further considera- 
tion. In this he sinned, and God gave him up to 
his own wicked heart, and that his punishment 



NUMBERS. 91 

might be wrought upon him, said, in answer to his 
solicitations, go. 

Num. xxv. 9. — And those that died in the 
plague were twenty and four thousand. 

There is no discrepancy between this passage and 
1 Cor. x. 8, as Paul speaks of those only who " fell 
in one day," viz., twenty-three thousand, while the 
text includes all that died on that occasion, even 
those who were destroyed by the judges. 

" These were butchered," said Voltaire, " to ex- 
piate the fault of one man who was surprised with 
a Moabitish woman." 

This is a falsehood. The twenty-four thousand 
were not slain for the sin of one, but perished for 
their own sins, before he was slain. 

Num. xxxi. 15. — And Moses said unto them, 
have ye saved all the women alive ? 

16. — Behold, these caused the children of 
Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to com- 
mit trespass against the Lord in the matter 
of Peor, and there was a plague among the 
congregation of the Lord. 

17. — Now therefore kill every male among 
the little ones, and kill every woman that 
hath known man by lying with him. But all 
the women-children, that hath not known 



92 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



man by lying with him, keep alive for your- 
selves. 

A few words will suffice to redeem this text from 
the indecent and blasphemous assertions of infidels. 
From the narrative given in chap, xxv., some idea 
may be formed of the extremely depraved and vi- 
cious character of the Midianites, and of their efforts 
to involve Israel in the same obscene and impious 
system of idolatry which they had adopted. Their 
arts but too well succeeded, and twenty-four thou- 
sand Israelites suffered death for their sins in this 
matter. In the present chapter the Lord commands 
Moses to avenge the children of Israel on these 
heathen. The Israelites are, therefore, to be regarded 
on this occasion as " the sword of the Lord," and 
not so much the sword of war as the sword of jus- 
tice. The former makes a difference between youth 
and manhood, between male and female; but the 
latter makes none, except between guilt and inno- 
cence^ or the various degrees of guilt. As to the 
females specified in the text to be destroyed, they 
were the greatest criminals, and had been more im- 
mediately the instruments of polluting Israel with 
superstitioD, obscenity and idolatry. Their lives 
were, therefore, forfeited by their personal trans- 
gressions. True, the infants had not sinned, but a 
moment's reflection will show that it was a merciful 
provision for both parties ; for, had they been pre- 
served, it would have been doubtless in a state of 
vassalage. Be that as it -may, while we know that 



NUMBERS. 



93 



the author and supporter of life has a right to dispose 
of it as he sees fit; and while we know, moreover, 
that as the " Judge of the earth," he will do right, 
we need not perplex ourselves to find the reasons of 
his conduct where he has seen fit to withhold them. 

It is not true that the young women were pre- 
served for concubinage. The laws of the Jews pro- 
tected the honor of the captives (Deut. xxi. 10-14), 
and treated them with benevolence. 

See further note on Deut. xx. 17, p. 97. 



DEUTERONOMY. 



Deut. i. 1. — These be the words which 
Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan 
in the wilderness, in the plain over against the 
Red Sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and 
Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizanab. 

The word rendered this side, reads in the original 
beyond Jordan, and it has been argued, with seeming 
plausibility, that this book must have been written 
after the Israelites had crossed into Canaan, and 
consequently, not by Moses. There is reason to 
believe, however, that the country on the east of 
Jordan was called Beyond Jordan, and was so de- 
signated without reference to the position of the 
speaker. There is an illustration of this in Caesar's 
Commentaries. That part of Gaul lying between 
Borne and the Alps was called Hither Gaul ; and 
that between the Alps and the Atlantic, was Farther 
Gaul ; and so Caesar denominates them, no matter 
where he is ; if in Farther Gaul, he calls it Farther 
Gaul, though to him it is actually Hither Gaul. This 
is very clear from the fact that "this side Jordan," 
Deut. i. 5, includes the land of Moab. The same 
occurs 1 Kings iv. 24. 
(U) 



DEUTERONOMY. 95 

r 

Deut. i. 10. — The Lord your God hath mul- 
tiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the 
stars of heaven for multitude. 

As Moses must have meant the stars visible to 
the eye, his comparison was very moderate, for the 
Israelites then exceeded this number many times. 
Infidels have forced upon the text a construction 
evidently foreign to it, and then disputed its truth. 

Deut. ii. 12. — The Horims also dwelt in 
Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau 
succeeded them, when they had destroyed 
them from before them, and dwelt in their 
stead; as Israel did unto the land of his pos- 
session, which the Lord gave unto them. 

As Israel had not yet entered into the possession of 
Canaan, it is evident that the last clause of the text 
is an interpolation; a note of some scribe, which 
has crept into the text. These interpolations are 
very few and easily detected, being in the form 
of explanation or illustration, and bearing evident 
marks of a later origin than the pure text. As it is, 
they constitute no valid objection to the genuineness 
or authenticity of the books in which they are found. 

Deut. xiii. 9. — But thou shalt surely kill 
him ; thy hand shall be first upon him to put 



96 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



him to death, and afterwards the hands of all 
the people. 

This was the penalty of idolatry, and infidels 
have pronounced it unnecessarily severe, cruel, &c. 
Severe penalties, however, were a part of the means 
used by Almighty God, to impress upon the mind 
of that people a proper notion of his holiness and 
justice. Moreover, for a Jew to become an idolater 
was to commit treason, a crime almost, if not uni-' 
versally, punished with death. 

Deut. xvii. 17. — Neither shall he multiply 
wives to himself, that his heart turn not away. 

It has been objected that had this, and other pas- 
sages in the Pentateuch, recognizing the existence of 
a king over Israel, existed in time of Samuel he 
would not have resisted, as he did (1 Sam. viii. 6), 
the appointment of a king. To this we reply : 
1. There is no force in the conclusion, as it assumes 
the point in debate — it must be proved that Samuel 
would not have objected to a king in the face of 
this and like laws. There is strong reason to believe 
he would : see 1 Sam. viii. 11. 2. It is evident 
Samuel's chief ground of displeasure was the rejec- 
tion of himself. 

The text has been the ground of another objec- 
tion, viz : — that had this law existed in the times of 
David and Solomon, they would not have taken to 
themselves such vast numbers of wives as they did. 



DEUTERONOMY. 



97 



This is a formidable objection ! A powerful argu- 
ment ! ! Quite unanswerable ! ! ! Pity it is, that it 
has not been proved that neither David nor Solomon 
would, nor did, violate any known law of God. 
This is essential to the objection, for without it it is 
perfectly silly. 

Deut. xx. 17.— But thou shalt utterly de- 
stroy them ; namely, the Hittites, and the 
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, 
the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord 
thy God hath commanded thee. 

Perhaps no objection to the sacred writings has 
been more popular among infidels than that based 
upon the command of God, to the Israelites, to 
destroy these heathen nations. It has been pro- 
nounced incomparably cruel and sufficient of itself 
to invalidate the whole Bible from Genesis to Eevela- 
tion. Morgan, Tindal, Bolingbroke and Paine, with 
a host of petty apostles, have rung their changes 
upon it, as if perfectly unanswerable. No notice 
has been taken of the wickedness of these nations, 
their idolatries, barbarous and bloody rites, cruel- 
ties in family government, and other shocking forms 
of vice, but they have been treated in the argument 
as a helpless, harmless people, cruelly cut off in their 
innocency. 

AYe reply to this objection, in all its phases, as 
follows : 

9 



98 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

1. These nations had so far sunken in depravity 
as to forfeit their probation. Crimes of the most 
shocking and disgusting nature filled up the mea- 
sure of their wickedness. See Deut. ix. 1-6, and 
Lev. xviii. Perhaps no nations, since known to us, 
have exhibited such deep moral corruption. And 
this description of them, by the Scriptures, is fully 
sustained by all the light that profane history throws 
upon them. There was then no cruelty in their 
destruction, but a just visitation of divine indig- 
nation. 

2. In selecting the Israelites as the instruments 
of this deserved punishment, God, doubtless, de- 
signed to impress their minds with an indelible 
sense of his abhorrence of sin. This was a leading 
feature in his providences and laws in reference to 
that people. In the terrible calamities which over- 
whelmed the Egyptians, they saw the awful hand 
of the sin-avenging God ; in the smoke which rolled 
up from every blood-dripping altar, they read that 
life is the sacrifice for sin; in the severe penalties 
guarding the divine law, they saw a formidable 
battery of wrath challenging their obedience, and 
threatening destruction to him who dared impiously 
to fling down the gauntlet of defiance to Almighty 
God. 

3. But infidels, much as they object to the facts 
here recorded, must meet the consequences. It is a 
fact that these nations were destroyed. Upon the 
most prevalent theories of infidelity, God is the 
cause of all that happens, hence, the God of infidels 



DEUTERONOMY. 



99 



is as justly impeachable as the God of the Bible in 
this matter. 

4. Again — God does now destroy thousands upon 
thousands by pestilence, earthquakes, and other 
instrumentalities. To say that these are natural 
causes does not relieve the case, for they are causes 
set in operation and directed by him, who " doeth 
all things according to his will," and doeth all 
things right. 

Deut. x. 6. — And the children of Israel took 
their journey from Beeroth of the children of 
Jaakin to Mosera: there Aaron died, and 
there he was buried. 

In Numbers, it is said Aaron died at Mount Hor ; 
Mosera was the name of the district in which Hor 
is situated. Moreover, the word there (scham) may 
be here used to designate the time of Aaron's death, 
and be translated then, or at that time, as it is in seve- 
ral other passages. 

Deut. xxi. 18-21. — The treatment of the 

rebellious son. 
• 

Parental power in ancient times extended even 
over the lives of the children. Moses here circum- 
scribes this power, and orders that no son be put to 
death until proved before the magistrates of the city 
guilty of the crimes above specified. This law then, 
so far from being cruel, as infidels have asserted, was 



100 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



designed to prevent a cruel and arbitrary exercise 
of power already possessed. 

Deut. xxvii. 4. — Therefore it shall be when 
ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up 
these stones, which I command you this day, 
in Mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them 
with plaster. * * * * * 

8. — And thou shalt write upon the stones all 
the words of this law, very plainly. 

An infidel work, now before me, denies that Moses 
wrote the Pentateuch, because " there were only two 
modes of writing known" at that time ; one by cut- 
ting words on stone, the other by tracing them on 
plaster; neither of which he could have used for 
the whole five books. 

1. We may set against this the assertion of other 
infidels, that manuscripts among Egyptians, Chinese, 
and Hindoos, antedate this period thousands of years, 
and go back even centuries before the time of Adam. 
This is certainly placing the origin of writing at a 
very early date. 

2. The truth is in neither of these extremes. • The 
precise date this art originated is now unknown. It 
is clear the Egyptians practised it before the time 
of Moses, and it was known to the Greeks at least 
as early as the Mosaic age. Cadmus, according to 
traditional history, carried the alphabet into Greece 
from Phoenicia, in 1821, B. C. : the Hebrews were 



DEUTERONOMY. 



101 



once neighbors of the Phoenicians, and may have 
acquired the knowledge of letters from them. These 
facts constitute a sufficient answer to the objection. 

Deut. xxxiv. — Death of Moses. 

This account of the death affixed to the Penta- 
teuch has been made a fruitful source of cavil by 
infidel writers. 

There is reason to believe that this passage ori- 
ginally formed an introduction to the book of 
Joshua, and became separated from it by the divi- 
sion of the books into chapters and verses, or at 
some earlier period. 

9* 



JOSHUA, 



Jos. v. 5. — Now all the people that came 
out were circumcised ; but all the people that 
were born in the wilderness by the way as 
they came forth out of Egypt, them they had 
not circumcised. 

It has been said that the omission of circumci- 
sion in the wilderness is not consistent with the 
authority of the law, and, therefore, the law could 
not have been in existence. This omission did not 
extend through the whole journey, but only from 
the time when the exclusion of the existing genera- 
tion from Canaan was declared, and it is easily ac- 
counted for by the wickedness of the Jews. 

Jos. x. 13. — And the sun stood still, and 
the moon stayed, until the people had avenged 
themselves upon their enemies. 

This language, though not philosophically correct, 
is in strict accordance with popular usage. The sun 
always stands still; yet the man who would say 
Philadelphia set last night, at 5.22, P. M., and rose 
this morning, at 6.11, A. M. however correct he 
(102) 



JOSHUA. 



103 



might be, would be regarded as a pedantic fool. 
The sacred narrative describes the phenomenon just 
as it appeared ; the sun and moon appeared to stand 
still — the day appeared to be thus prolonged, and 
this manner of expression satisfies all the demands 
of truth. The event being miraculous, can not be 
objected to on scientific grounds. 

Jos. x. 23. — And they did so, and brought 
forth those five kings unto him out of the cave, 
the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the 
king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the 
king of Eglon. 

There is no discrepancy between the account of 
the death of this king of Hebron, given in v. 26, 
and that in v. 37 : two different individuals are 
spoken of; yet some infidels have not had sense 
enough to see this, or honesty enough to acknow- 
ledge it. 

Jos. xi. 19. — There was not a city that 

made peace with the children of Israel, save 

the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon : all 

other they took in battle. 

The last clause of this text is said to be contra- 
dicted by chap. xv. 63 : but Jerusalem was in the 
possession of the Israelites, though the Jebusites, 
there spoken of, remained fortified in a small por- 
tion of the city — the city was taken, but the fort or 
castle remained in their possession. 



JUDGES, 



Jud. i. 19. — And the Lord was with Judah; 
and he drave out the inhabitants of the moun- 
tain ; but could not drive out the inhabitants 
of the valley, because they had chariots of 
iron. 

The pronoun he of the text stands for Judah. 
He drove out the inhabitants of the mountain be- 
cause the Lord was with him, but it does not follow 
that the Lord was with him when he attempted to 
drive out the inhabitants of the valleys. Here, left 
to himself, he fails. 

Jud. ix. 13. — And the vine said unto them, 
should I leave my wine, which cheereth God 
and man. 

The word God should be gods, i. e., the hero-gods 
of the heathen ; Jotham is speaking of an idolatrous 
city, and the language is figurative. 

Jud. xi. 30, 31. — Jephthah's vow. 

This has been made the subject of much infidel 
animadversion. But why should God ; or his word, 
(104) 



JUDGES. 



105 



be held responsible for the rash vow of an indivi- 
dual ? Human sacrifices were positively forbidden. 
(See note on Lev. xxvii. 29, page 88;) consequently, 
if he offered his daughter as a burnt- offering, it was 
in violation of God's law, and without his approval 
— nay, with his displeasure. 

But it is not true that he so offered his daughter. 
The word it, in the vow (offer it up), does not belong 
to the original; that reads — "shall surely be the 
Lord's, and I will offer a burnt-offering." This view 
is corroborated by the last verse of the chapter, 
which, literally translated, reads — "the daughters 
of Israel went up from year to year to talk with the 
daughter of Jephthah," &o. He consecrated her to 
God in perpetual virginity (v. 39), the greatest sacri- 
fice a Jew could make with an only child. 



v 



1 SAMUEL, 



1 Sam. vi. 19. — And he smote of the men 
of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked 
into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the 
people fifty thousand three score and ten men. 

The immense number here said to be slain for 
this offence, has been made matter of severe com- 
ment among infidel writers. But the justice of the 
punishment is not to be determined by the number 
punished; where it is just to punish one for an 
offence, it is just to punish any number who may be 
guilty of it. God is the absolute proprietor of life, 
and has the right to fix its limits as he wills ; and 
he, alone, can determine what penalties are best 
fitted to impress with reverence and secure the obe- 
dience of his creatures. 

As the original reads — " seventy men, fifty thou- 
sand men," which does not make sense, many 
learned critics think a letter used as a particle has 
been lost from the text, and that it should be trans- 
lated — " he smote of the people seventy men out of 
fifty thousand." 

1 Sam. xiii. 14. — But now thy kingdom 

(106) 



1 SAMUEL. 



107 



shall not continue : the Lord hath sought him 
a man after his own heart. 

The prophet, in this language, makes no reference 
to David's moral character, but means that he is the 
instrument, or person chosen for the accomplishment 
of certain purposes. See Acts xiii. 22. 

1 Sam. xxviii. 7-25. — Saul and the witch 
of Endor. „ 

There is in the appearance of Samuel's spirit, on 
this occasion, no evidence of chicanery or satanic 
influence. The woman was as much surprised and 
alarmed as Saul. The prophetic denunciations of 
Samuel, which afterwards came to pass, were such 
as neither human wisdom nor diabolical power could 
foresee, and prove beyond doubt, that it was " the 
Lord's doings," and it was marvelous in our eyes. 



* Jahn. 



2 SAMUEL. 



2 Sam. i. 1-10.— The death of Saul. 

The account of Saul's death, here given, contra- 
dicts that in the preceding chapter, but then it is the 
story of a runaway Anialekite, told for the purpose 
of gaining David's favor, consequently, no depen- 
dence is to be placed upon it, and the Bible is not 
responsible for its untruth, because it exposes its 
falsity. 

2 Sam. xii. 30. — And he took their king's 
crown from off his head (the weight whereof 
was a talent of gold with the precious stones), 
and it was set on David's head. 

According to the usual interpretation the weight 
of this crown would be nearly one hundred and 
fourteen pounds, which, it is obvious, could not be 
borne by any human head. We are far from being 
certain of the absolute meaning of the Hebrew 
words, translated a talent of gold; and while the 
term is involved in so much uncertainty, no objec- 
tion can be urged against the narrative on the ground 
of its supposed incredibility. 

2 Sam. xii. 31. — And he brought forth the 

(108) 



2 SAMUEL. 



109 



people that were therein, and put them under 
saws and under harrows of iron, and under 
axes of iron, and made them pass through the 
brick-kiln. 

David has been not unfrequently reproached for 
the cruelty he inflicted upon the Amorites on this 
occasion, which, it is said, was incompatible to the 
character elsewhere given of him — "a man after 
God's own heart,"— an expression never properly 
understood by the modern assailants of this man. 
In the present instance, however, the cruelty of 
David is only in our translation, or rather in the 
sense ascribed to under and through in the text. An 
able critic has translated the passage thus : — " He 
brought forth the inhabitants, and put them to the 
saw, and to iron mines and iron axes, and trans- 
ported them to the brick-kiln." This seems to 
represent fully the sense of the original. But to 
this it has been objected, that in the parallel passage 
1 Chron. x'x. 3, it is expressly said that " he cut them 
with saws," &c. ; in reply we would say the word 
them, in this last text, does not belong to it, but was 
inserted by the translators, and is placed in italics. 
There is nothing, therefore, in this passage which 
conflicts with the view we have given of the text. 

2 Sam. xxiv. 1. — And again the anger of 

the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he 
10 



110 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

moved David against them to say, go, number 
Israel and Judah. 

This passage presents an apparent contradiction 
to 1 Chron. xxi. 1, in which Satan is said to provoke 
David to number Israel. The question is, who did 
move or provoke David to this act ? 

Without speculating on the peculiar feature in 
this act of David, which constitutes its guilt, it was 
evidently a crime of no small magnitude. The re- 
monstrance of Joab is proof of this. The character 
of this man, as developed in the sacred history, 
warrants the belief that under the bidding of the 
king, he would have stopped at no ordinary crime, 
yet he here remonstrates strongly against the num- 
bering the people. The act, therefore, must have 
involved something very criminal. 

Again, the punishment inflicted upon the people 
compels us to take this view of the subject. God 
would not have laid his hand so heavily upon Israel 
save to punish some deep, dark transgression. 
Hence, he could not have been the author or insti- 
gator of the act. If it involved moral obliquity 
(as unquestionably it did), he did not move David 
to do it. For this reason, if there existed no other, 
we should be compelled to regard the above render- 
ing of the text as faulty. 

But eminent critics, for philological reasons, which 
we can not give here, render the second clause of 
the text — "for he moved David," &c. ; the pronoun 
he being used impersonally, and not in the place of 



2 SAMUEL. 



Ill 



the noun Lord. The noun for which he stands is 
that supplied by the writer of Chronicles, namely, 
Satan. This understanding of the text is strictly 
consistent with correct exegetical principles, and 
throws light upon the cause of God's anger. 

Other biblical scholars propose to throw the clause 
into the passive form, thus — " for David was moved 
against them by saying," &c, which obviates the 
difficulties of the text. Nor do we know any valid 
objection to such a construction. Therefore, before 
it can be said that the above passages of Scripture 
present a contradiction, it must be shown that nei- 
ther of these solutions is suited to the demands of 
the case, which, we premise, will be a most difficult 
task, seeing they both have the authority of great 
names in biblical literature. 



1 KINGS, 



1 Kings ii. 6. — Do therefore according to 
thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go 
down to the grave in peace. 

This is the direction which David, on his death- 
bed, gave to Solomon respecting the punishment of 
Joab, who had been guilty of a brutal murder, and 
was then in open rebellion against the kingdom. 
David does not specify the manner in which he 
should be punished, but leaves this to the wisdom 
of Solomon, saying only that he should not be suf- 
fered to go to his grave unpunished. 

1 Kings ii. 8. — And behold, thou hast with 
thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of 
Bahurim, which cursed rne with a grievous 
curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim : 
but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and 
I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not 
put thee to death with the sword. 

9. — Now therefore hold him not guiltless: 

for thou art a wise man, and knowest what 

(112) 



1 KINGS. 



113 



thou oughtest to do unto him ; but his hoar 
head bring thou down to the grave with blood. 

A misunderstanding of this passage has led to 
the opinion that David commanded Solomon to kill 
Shimei, for a crime that he had once sworn not to 
punish by death. Thus an injury has been done this 
illustrious character by not duly observing— what is 
common in the Hebrew language — the omission of 
the negative in a second part of the sentence (and 
considering it repeated), which is expressed in the 
first and followed by the connecting particle. In 
Psa. lxxv. 5, we read, " Lift not up your horn on 
high: speak not with a stiff neck." The second not, 
in this text, is inserted by our translators because it 
is understood, though not repeated in the original. 
This is further confirmed by Psa. i. 5, and xxxviii 1. 
Apply this pule to the passage above, and it will 
read — "Behold thou hast," &c. ; and "but bring not 
his hoar head," &c. 

That this is the meaning of the passage is very 
evident from the context. Solomon did not then 
kill Shimei ; nor did he hold him guiltless, but put 
him on parol, and slew him only when he violated 
his oath, and for that reason. 

1 Kings xii. 26-29. — The golden calves of 
Jeroboam. 

De Wette, Paulus, Gesenius, and others, have 
argued that if the Pentateuch had been in existence 
10* 



114 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

at this time, Jeroboam would never have ventured 
to set up these calves for worship, or the people 
would not have submitted to it, if he had. 

" Reasoning a priori, this argument has consider- 
able plausibility, provided attention be not paid to 
the nature of the human mind, and the facts of his- 
tory. But on examining it more closely, it loses all 
force. The history of all religions shows, that in 
their sacred records, no commandment or prohibi- 
tion has existed, however clear and distinct, which 
a wrong bias has not attempted, by all the arts 
which a mind averse from truth has at command, to 
free itself from without impugning the authority of 
the original record. By such argumentation as the 
above, how plainly it could be shown that the 
Scriptures were not in existence in the sixteenth 
century, or, in short, that they never existed. To 
take only one out of numerous examples. What a 
plausible proof of the non-existence of the New 
Testament might be drawn from the present practice 
of divorces, and the marriages of the divorced by 
the ministers of the church ? The expressions re- 
lating to this subject, in the New Testament, are 
quite as decided and clear as the expressions in the 
Pentateuch, which Jeroboam explained away."* 

1 Kings xiii. 1-24. — The man of God at 
Bethel. 

This man of God was sent to prophecy against 

* Hengstenberg. 



1 KINGS. 



115 



the altar at Bethel, and forbidden to stop in the 
place, or to return by the way he went, yet allowed 
himself to be persuaded to tarry by a pretended 
prophet, and consequently lost his life. " If this man 
of God," says an infidel work before me, " could be 
so deceived, how can we distinguish between a true 
prophet and a false one?" 

If this man had done precisely as he was told to 
do, he would have passed out in safety. The com- 
mand of God to him was clear and positive, and he 
had no right to set up against this the pretensions 
of any one. His disobedience was the cause of his 
death. The whole incident teaches us to trust in 
God's word above everything else. 

1 Kings iv. 26. — And Solomon had forty 

thousand stalls of horses for his chariots. 

In 2 Chron. ix. 25, we read of but four thousand 
stalls for horses and chariots. "Whence occasion has 
been taken to affirm a contradiction between the 
passages. A careful inspection of the texts, how- 
ever, will show that the author of Kings speaks of 
horses; and the author of Chron. of the stalls or 
stables in which they were kept. 

1 Kings xxii. 1-27. — The interview between 

Micaiah and Ahab. 

The deception practised upon Ahab, resulting in 
his death, has been strongly animadverted upon by 
infidels, who have not scrupled to charge the whole 



116 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

upon the Lord. The facts in the case were as fol- 
lows : 

1. Ahab was a very wicked man, and had made 
himself obnoxious to God's judgments, and worthy 
of death. 

2. He had determined to trust in his own pro- 
phets and to hear nothing from the prophet of the 
Lord, whom he hated (v. 8). 

3. Micaiah relates a vision (v. 17), representing 
Israel as scattered like sheep. This displeases Ahab 
greatly, for he does not want the truth. 

4. Micaiah relates another vision (v. 19-22) ; the 
dialogue narrated in this passage never actually 
occurred. It is a vision simply, and is so given by 
the prophet. 

5. The meaning of v. 23, is, that as Ahab was 
determined not to have the truth, but wanted to be 
flattered by his prophets, God " sent him strong de- 
lusion that he might believe a lie and be damned." 



2 KINGS'. 



2 Kings ii. 23, 24. — And as he was going 
up by the way, there came forth little children 
out of the city, and mocked him, and said 
unto him, Go up, thou bald head ; go up, thou 
bald head, &c. 

The prophet Elisha has been reproached in no 
very measured terms for cursing these Utile children. 
But the word so rendered in the text, signifies young 
men ; these not only insulted Elisha, but also derided 
his prophetic character. He cursed them in the name 
of the Lord, that is under divine influence — by divine 
authority — he was the medium through whom God 
expressed his displeasure. 

To what extent the bears injured them is not said ; 
"they tare" or wounded forty-two of them. 

2 Kings v. 18. — In this thing the Lord par- 
don thy servant, that when my master goeth 
into the house of Rimmon to worship there, 
and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself 

in the house of Rimmon : when I bow down 

(117) 



118 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord par- 
don thy servant in this thing. 

"But when Naaman, the idolator, asked Elisha to 
permit him to follow his king into the temple of 
Kimmon, and to worship with him there, did not 
the same Elisha, who had caused the children to be 
devoured by bears, answer him, go in peace?" — 
Voltaire. 

Naaman, at this time, was not an idolater (v. 17). 
He does not ask permission to worship with the 
king (v. 18). He wishes to know whether he may 
now perform certain services for his master in the 
temple. 

2 Kings vi. 25. — And there was a great fa- 
mine in Samaria : and behold they besieged it, 
until an ass's head was sold for four-score pieces 
of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's 
dung for five pieces of silver. 

The ass was an unclean animal whose flesh was 
prohibited by law, this text is, therefore, difficult to 
understand, unless we suppose the straitness of the 
siege compelled them to eat unclean beasts. 

Some think the words rendered ass's head, mean 
a pile of bread, or other food. Dove's dung is a 
kind of vetches or pulse, called by the Arabs pigeon's 
dung. 

2 Kings xv. 33. — Five and twenty years old 



2 KINGS. 



119 



was he when he began to reign, and he reigned 
sixteen years in Jerusalem. 

It was sometimes the case in Israel and Judah, 
that father and son reigned together, in which cases 
the length of the reign was often computed from dif- 
ferent dates, as the reign of a son from its com- 
mencement, when his father was on the throne, or 
from the death of the father, when the son began to 
reign alone. This has occasioned some apparent 
discrepancies. In the above text Jotham is said to 
have reigned sixteen years ; in the thirtieth verse, 
the "twentieth year of his reign" is mentioned, 
which is explained by the fact that he reigned some 
years with his father. 

2 Kings xx. 11. — And Isaiah the prophet 
cried unto the Lord : and he brought the sha- 
dow ten degrees backward, by which it had 
gone down in the dial of Ahaz. 

It is not necessary for the understanding of this 
text, to suppose that either the sun or the earth 
changed its course ten degrees or even one degree.. 
The intervention of a light mass of vapor between 
the dial and the sun, would have refracted his beams 
sufficient to bring back the shadow of the style ten 
degrees, measuring perhaps ten minutes, or even less. 

2 Kings xxiv. 11.— And Nebuchadnezzar, 



120 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

king of Babylon, came against the city, and 
his servants did besiege it. 

Jerusalem was taken by the king of Babylon 
three times. 2 Chron. 36. First, in the reign of 
Jehoiakim ; second, in the reign of his son, Jehoia- 
chin; and third, in the reign of Zedekiah. By con- 
fusing these several transactions, infidels have made 
difficulties which do not belong to the book, and 
then charged upon the writer of it, either igno- 
rance, or a want of veracity. 



1 CHRONICLES. 



1 Chron. xxi. 25. — So David gave to Oman 
for the place six hundred shekels of gold by 
weight. 

In 2 Sam. xxi v. 16, 24 verses, it is said David 
bought the threshing-floor and oxen for fifty shekels 
of silver of Araunah. There is no real discrepancy 
here. In Samuel, the purchase of the threshing-floor 
and oxen only is mentioned, but in the text these, 
together with the instruments of threshing, the 
wheat, and the place where the threshing-floor stood, 
are included. See v. 22, &c. 

11 (121) 



2 CHRONICLES. 



2 Chron. xxxiv. 14. — And when they brought 
out the money that was brought into the house 
of the Lord, Hilkiah, the priest, found a book 
of the law of the Lord given by Moses. 

Infidels have made great use of this passage, dis- 
puting thereupon the genuineness of the Pentateuch, 
but only by perverting most grossly the facts in rela- 
tion to it. There is no evidence that more than one 
book of Moses was lost, or rather missed or over- 
looked, as the narrative indicates. There is no proof 
that it was lost for any considerable time. But, ad- 
mitting that it was the whole five books of Moses, 
and these were lost or overlooked in the temple for 
seventy-five or eighty years, the greatest length of 
time that can be supposed, for they were in use in 
the reign of Hezekiah, yet all this would not inva- 
lidate the genuineness or the authenticity of the copy 
found. 

Infidels have not scrupled to assert that Hilkiah 
forged the book he professed to find, but as this has 
not a shadow of evidence in sacred or profane his- 
tory to support it, it is a falsehood. 

It would appear from all that is recorded of this 
(122) 



2 CHRONICLES. 123 

incident, that the original autograph copy of the 
Pentateuch by Moses, was found by Hilkiah, and it 
was this fact, as well as its contents, which pro- 
duced the excitement described. 



PROVERBS. 



Prov. xxi. 3. — To do justice and judgment 
is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. 
(See p. 130.) 

Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. — Answer not a fool accord- 
ing to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be 
wise in his own conceit. 

The Syriac version, instead of the above reading 
of the fifth verse, reads — Answer a fool according 
to thine own wisdom, &c. The ancient Hebrew copy 
of the Chaldee paraphrase, had the same reading. 
Dr.Kennicott accounts for the alteration, as follows : 
" And, as the present Hebrew MSS. afford proof 
that a word has sometimes been taken in carelessly 
from the line above ; so the last word of the first 
hemistich in the second verse, is here taken in, im- 
properly, from the end of the first hemistich imme- 
diately over it, where the same words, preceding 
and following, might the more easily mislead the 
eye of the transcriber." 
(124) 



SONGS OF SOLOMON, 



Much objection has been made to this book by 
infidels. It is highly figurative in style, and this 
is one proof of its oriental and ancient origin. That 
it is unchaste or immoral, only a gross and impure 
mind could assert. 



ECCLESIASTES, 

One of the leading propositions of this book is :- — 
that on the supposition of there being no future 
state, to which this is a preliminary, the whole of 
human life is vanity, and the creation of the world 
and of man a failure ; and in establishing and illus- 
trating this proposition the writer often avails him- 
self of the position of the infidel, and employs the 
argumentum ex absurdo, with overwhelming effect. 
So that whatever infidels here find in sympathy with 
their views is at the same time fully and fairly an- 
swered. 

11* (125) 



ISAIAH, 



Isa. vii. 14. — Therefore the Lord himself 
shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall 
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his 
name Immanuel. 

The application of this text to Christ has been 
disputed, because of its intimate connection with 
another prophecy, which had its fulfilment in the 
days of the prophet. These two prophecies can, 
however, be distinguished by attention to the cir- 
cumstances of the case. Eezin, king of Syria, and 
Pekah, king of Israel, joined to subdue Judah and 
place Tibcah on the throne of David, (vrs. 1, 2, 5, 6.) 
The prophet was commanded to take his own child 
(v. 3), go to a certain place, and there declare that 
this confederacy should fail, and in connection there- 
with he gave two signs — one, that Immanuel should 
be born of a virgin, which was but renewing the 
promise of a Messiah to the Jews, — the second, that 
before this child, not the virgin's, but his own, should 
come to maturity, Syria and Israel should be for- 
saken of their kings, which came to pass. 

Isa. xx. 3. — And the Lord said, Like as my 

(126) 



ISAIAH. 



127 



servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot 
these years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt 
and upon Ethiopia. 

" Men saw Isaiah walking stark naked in Jeru- 
salem, in order to show that the king of Assyria 
would bring a crowd of captives out of Egypt and 
Ethiopia, who would not have anything to cover 
their nakedness." — Voltaire. 

This is a falsehood. 

The prophet was told (v. 2), to throw off his sack- 
cloth and shoes, and this was all that was meant by 
the word naked ; just as now, in common parlance, 
we speak of a person as not dressed when the toilet 
is not arranged. The 4th v. speaks of the condition 
of the captives, not of Isaiah. 

Isa. xlv. 7. — I form the light, and create 
darkness ; I make peace, and create evil : I 
the Lord do all these things. 

The Lord sends wars, pestilence, calamities and 
other evils, as punishments for national sins ; it is in 
this, and not the sense of an originator of moral 
evil, that he is said to create evil. 



JEREMIAH. 



Jer. xxxviii. 27. — Then came all the princes 
unto Jeremiah, and asked him : and he told 
them according to all these words that the 
king had commanded. 

Jeremiah has been accused of duplicity, because 
he refused to tell the princes all that transpired be- 
tween him and the king ; but he was under no obli- 
gation to tell them all; he had promised the king 
not to do so, and what he did tell them was strictly 
true. Chap, xxxvii. 20. 



EZEKIEL. 

Eze. xiv. 9. — And if the prophet be deceived 
when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have 
deceived that prophet, &c. 

This is spoken of the wicked and false prophets, 
and means that Grod will defeat and disappoint their 
predictions. The Lord, in the context, calls his peo- 
ple to repentance, and warns them against trusting 
in these false prophets, who prophesied good of them 
in their sins, for they should be "deceived" if they 
trusted to prosper in wickedness. This is all that 
is meant bv deceiving the prophet as above. 
(128) 



DANIEL. 



Dan. i. 1. — In the third year of the reign 
of J ehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchad- 
nezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and 
besieged it. 

In Jer. xxv. 1, the fourth year of Jehoiakim is 
made to correspond with the first year of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which is supposed to be contradictory to the 
text above. 

1. As the text was written after Nebuchadnezzar 
came to the throne, it was not improper to speak of 
him as the king even in events occurring while he 
was general only, just as we would say President 
Pierce was in the Mexican war. 

2. Heirs to the kingdoms are often called kings 
in ancient writings, by way of anticipation. In Dan. 
ii. 1, it is said that " in the second year of the reign 
of Nebuchadnezzar" he " dreamed dreams," yet this 
must have been three or four years after the event 
named in the text. Other illustrations of this are 
to be found in the sacred books. 

3. If the first year of Nebuchadnezzar com- 
menced toward the middle or close of Jehoiakim 's 
third year, it would correspond also with his fourth, 
according to Jeremiah. 

(129) 



HOSEA. 



Hosea vi. 6. — For I desired mercy, and not 
sacrifice. Also, Psa. xl. 6 ; Prov. xxi. 3. 

These texts have been used by an English infidel 
writer, to show that God did not command sacri- 
fices, or else has contradicted himself. This mani- 
fests great ignorance or perverse obstinacy. The 
context of these passages proves that it was the cha- 
racter of the sacrifices, and the manner in which 
they were offered, that called forth such language, 
and not the offering of sacrifices in itself. 
(130) 



JONAH, 



Jonah i. 17. — Now the Lord had prepared a 
great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah 
was in the belly of the fish three days and 
three nights. 

ii. 10. — And the Lord spake unto the fish, 
and it vomited out Jonah on the dry land. 

The book of Jonah has been treated with a great 
deal of irreverence and ridicule, by shallow, self- 
conceited infidels, on account of the incident nar- 
rated above. But the event is miraculous, and can 
be denied upon three grounds only : — 1. That God 
could not do such a thing — 2. That he would not do 
it, or — 3. There is not sufficient evidence to believe he 
did do it. Upon the first ground the question relates 
simply to God's power, and will not admit of dis- 
pute. Upon the second we remark, that the preser- 
vation and punishment of a disobedient prophet — 
the attestation of his claims as a divine messenger, 
and the warning of a wicked people, numbering 
nearly a million, certainly gave occasion for miracu- 
lous interposition. Upon the third ground we ob- 
serve, that the evidence of the book of Jonah involves 
the evidences of the whole canon; these evidences 

(131) 



132 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

have never been invalidated, and are irrefutable. 
The name of Jonah has also been discovered upon 
ruins, in the recent excavations at Nineveh, by 
Layard. 

Muller relates an incident which took place in the 
Mediterranean, in 1758. A sailor fell overboard 
from a frigate, and was immediately received into 
the jaws of an immense sea-dog or carcharis ; before 
the fish sank he was shot, and compelled to disgorge 
his prey, who was uninjured, and lived many years 
afterwards. Such a fish was, no doubt, employed 
in the case of Jonah, and the incident shows that the 
miracle was not so stupendous as to be utterly incre- 
dible. The prophet was under the care and pre- 
served by the power of God, unto whom all things 
are possible.* 



* See Biblio. Sacra, Jan. 1854. 



Objection b^c5 tjpori ft)e Heto Jegfyftienf. 



MATTHEW. 

Matt. i. 1. — The book of the generation of 
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of 
Abraham. 

For reasons already stated, p. 7, we naturally 
expect to find differences in the accounts which the 
several Evangelists give of the life and labors of 
Christ. In attempting to harmonize these accounts 
serious difficulties present themselves. Many of 
these arise from the want of chronological order in 
the statement of facts. The Evangelists have not 
regarded the succession of time in the events which 
they have narrated. They begin with his birth and 
end with his death, and subsequent ascension to 
heaven, giving the most important of his sayings 
and doings, but nowhere is there discovered a de- 
sign to preserve a fixed chronological order in the 
facts related. 

Another difficulty in harmonizing the Gospels is 
12 (133) 



134 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

found in the different genealogies of Christ, given 
by Matthew and Lnke. It can hardly be conceived 
possible to construct such a genealogical table, de- 
scending from generation to generation in unbroken 
succession, in a family often dwelling in deep obscu- 
rity, and whose history comprised a period of seve- 
ral thousands of years. The most celebrated families 
of modern times would find it impossible to trace 
their genealogy through a thousand years in an 
unbroken line.* But the expectation of the Mes- 
siah, through Abraham and David, led the Jews to 
pay minute attention to their genealogical tables, 
and enabled them to trace the ancestorial line of 
Christ through all the divisions and subdivisions of 
the tribes. The differences in these two tables of 
Matthew and Luke are easily accounted for, and 
happily may be satisfactorily reconciled. 

The genealogy of Mary, as well as that of Joseph, 
is given, fixing, beyond dispute, the descent of Christ 
from David : the descent by Mary has a real signi- 
ficance, that by Joseph an ostensible one, he appear- 
ing before the world as the reputed father of Christ. 

"Both tables, at first view, purport to give the 
lineage of our Lord through Joseph. But Joseph 
can not have been the son by natural descent of both 
Jacob and Heli (Eli), Matt. 1, 16: Luke 3, 23. 
Only one of the tables, therefore, can give his true 
lineage by generation. This is done, apparently, in 
that of Matthew; because, beginning at Abraham, 



* Olshausen on Matt. i. 1* 



MATTHEW. 



135 



it proceeds by natural descent, as we know from 
history, until after the exile, and then continues on 
in the same mode of expression until Joseph. Here 
the phrase is changed, and it is no longer Joseph who 
" begat" Jesus, but Joseph, the " husband of Mary, 
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." * 
Joseph was legally related to Eli by marriage. See 
note on Luke iii. 23. 

Matthew begins the lineage with Abraham, and 
thus shows Christ's relation to the Jews, but Luke 
ascends to Adam and thereby connects, the Ee- 
deemer with all mankind. 

After David, Matthew carries the line down 
through Solomon, but Luke takes it through Na- 
than, another son of David. 

It happened sometimes that names were left out 
of the Jewish genealogical tables, because of impiety, 
and for other reasons. An illustration will be 
seen by comparing Ezra vii. 1-5, with 1 Chron. vi. 
3-15 ; where six generations are left out of one 
record. These omissions did not impair the record, 
as the lineage was still made apparent. Such omis- 
sions, for reasons not given, occur in the table of 
Matthew. 

The application of the same names to different 
persons is a source of difficulty here as elsewhere. 
A little attention will show that the Salathiel and 
Zorobabel of Matthew are not the same persons 
bearing those names in the table of Luke, yet the 

* Dr. Robinson's Harmony, 171. 



136 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAIXST INFIDELITY. 

want of such attention has produced much con- 
fusion. 

The words, the son of, running through Luke's 
table, were added by the translators for the sake of 
the connection, and are not always literally true. 

The three divisions (Matt. i. 17), are reckoned by 
counting David as the last of the first, and the first 
of the second, and Jechoniah as the first of the third 
division. 



GENEALOGICAL TABLE* 





EXHIBITING 


THE 


THREE DIVISIONS 


OE MATTHEW. 


1. 


Abraham, 


1. 


David, 


1. Jechoniah, 


2. 


Isaac, 


2. 


Solomon, 


2. Salathiel, 


3. 


Jacob, 


3. 


Roboam, 


3. Zorobabel, 


4. 


Judah, 


4. 


Abiah, 


4. Abiud, 


5. 


Phares, 


5. 


Asa, 


5. Eliakim, 


6. 


Esrom, 


6. 


Josaphat, 


6. Azor, 


7. 


.Aram, 


7. 


Joram, 


7. Sadoc, 


8. 


Aminadab, 


8. 


Uzziah, (Ozias)> 


8. Achim, 


9. 


Naason, 


9. 


Jotham, 


9. Eliud. 


10. 


Salmon, 


10. 


Ahaz, 


10. Eleazer, 


11. 


Boaz, 


11. 


Hezekiah, 


11. Matthan, 


12. 


Obed, 


12. 


Manasseh, 


12. Jacob, 


13. Jesse, 


13. 


Amon, 


13. Joseph, 


14. 


David, 


14. 


Josiah. 


14. Jesus. 



In some ancient MSS. the name of Jehoiakim is 
inserted between Josiah and Jechoniah, in which 
case the second series begins with Solomon instead 
of David as above, though the repetition of David 
does, at least, appear to be called for by the text, 
Matt. i. 17. See Strong's Harmony of the Gospels. 

* From Dr. Robinson's Harmony. 



MATTHEW. 



137 



Matt. ii. 16. — Then Herod, when he saw 
that he was mocked of the wise men, was ex- 
ceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the 
children that were in Bethlehem, and in all 
the coasts thereof, from two years old and 
under, according to the time which he dili- 
gently inquired of the wise men. 

In the coasts thereof, means the surrounding coun- 
try near the town. This massacre has been doubted 
because no historian makes mention of it. This 
silence is easily accounted for. The number of chil- 
dren slain must have been small (Bethlehem being 
but a little country town), and the massacre itself, 
compared with the many horrible deeds of Herod., 
became a small affair. 

Matt. ii. 23. — And he came and dwelt in a 
city called Nazareth : that it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be 
called a Nazarene. 

The word prophets, in the plural form, shows that 
Matthew had no particular passage in view, but used 
the term Nazarene in the then common sense, as 
meaning one low, despised. Psa. xxii., and Isa. liii. 
are sufficient to prove the correctness of the text. 

Matt. iii. 4. — And the same John had his 
12* 



138 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY 

raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle 
about his loins ; and his meat was locusts and 
wild honey. 

A species of the grasshopper or locust, very com- 
mon in the east, is still used there as an article of 
food, being dried, ground, and made up into bread. 

. Matt. iv. 8. — Again, the devil taketh him 
up into an exceeding high mountain, and 
showeth him all the kingdoms of the worlds 
and the glory of them. 

This temptation of Christ, by Satan, was in perfect 
accordance with the prevailing opinion of the Jews, 
that the Messiah should have universal dominion. 
But the text does not mean (as infidels have charged 
upon it), that all the kingdoms of earth could be 
seen from any mountain in Judea or elsewhere. To 
show means to exhibit, or make appear in any way. 

Matt. x. 34. — Think not that I am come to 
send peace on earth; I am come not to send 
peace, but a sword. 

Strife is not the object of Christ's advent ; its real 
object is the peace in which the strife above inti- 
mated terminates. Nevertheless, strife is the result 
of Christ's entrance into the heart ; it, too often, 
brings upon a man the enmity of ''his own house- 



MATTHEW. 



189 



told." " The results of Messiah's appearance among 
men depend upon their own spiritual dispositions : 
salvation for the believer, destruction for the unbe- 
liever. Around his banner the hosts of the faithful 
gather ; bat infidels reject and fight against it."* 

Matt. xi. 3. — And said unto him, Art thou 
he that should come, or do we look for an- 
other ? 

This is the inquiry John sent to make of Christ, 
and it is claimed to be inconsistent with his former 
acknowledgment of Christ. But John was now in 
prison and not able to identify him of whom he 
hears so much, as the "Shiloh." Moreover, the 
seeming delay in the manifestation of Christ as the 
Messiah in great glory (as was expected), as well as 
a commendable caution, may have been the reason 
of his anxiety to hear from him personally. 

Matt. xiii. 34. — All these things spake Jesus 
unto the multitude in parables ; and without 
a parable spake he not unto them. 

So far from meaning that Jesus spoke dark and 
incomprehensible things only, the text teaches that 
he presented and illustrated religious truths through 
the medium of earthly things — through the familiar 
concerns of everyday life. "We may define the 



* Neander's Life of Christ, p. 24. 



140 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



parables as representations through which the truths 
pertaining to the kingdom of God are vividly exhi- 
bited by means of special relations of common life, 
taken either from nature or the world of man- 
kind."* This is all that is meant by parables in the 
text. 

Matt. xiii. 587 — And he did not many 
mighty works there, because of their unbelief. 

Their unbelief was not the cause of any inability 
on the part of Christ, bat they had obstinately 
rejected his doctrines, to establish which his mira- 
cles were performed, consequently, miracles were no 
longer necessary or useful. 

Matt. xv. 26. — But he answered and said, 
It is not meet to take the children's bread and 
cast it to the dogs. 

Our Lord meant no disrespect in this language to 
the Canaanitish woman. He used a figurative ex- 
pression, current at the time, in order to try her 
faith. 

Matt. xv. 39. — And he sent away the mul- 
titude, and took ship, and came into the coasts 
of Magdala. 

In Mark viii. 10, it is said, he "came into the 

* Neander's Life of Christ, p. 107. 



MATTHEW. 



141 



parts of Dalmanutha." These places were near 
each other on the west side of the sea of Galilee, so 
that he could be "on the coasts" of one and "into 
parts" of the other at one time. 

Matt. xxi. 1, 2. — And when they were nigh 
unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, 
and unto the Mount of Olives, then sent Jesus 
two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the 
village over against you, and straightway ye 
shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her : 
loose them, and bring them unto me. 

Our Lord did not here appropriate to his own 
use that to which he had no right ; there seems to 
have been a previous agreement between himself 
and the owners of the animals for the use of them ; 
be this as it may, the owners gave their consent to 
the transaction. Mark xi. 6. 

Matt. xxi. 19. — And when he saw a fig-tree 
in the way, he came to it, and found nothing 
thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let 
no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. 
And presently the fig-tree withered away. 

In blasting this fig-tree there was no trespass 
upon private property, for it grew on the public 
road — the highway. Neither is there any conflict 



142 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

between this account of the event and that given 
by Mark. Matthew's is an abbreviated, or con- 
densed, and Mark's a more detailed account, so that 
some points are mentioned in the latter which are 
omitted in the former ; but nothing in the one con- 
tradicts the other. 

One design of this act of the Lord was no doubt 
to exhibit the character and destiny of the Jewish 
nation. Like this tree they were fruitless, and 
consequently doomed to the wrath of God. 

Matt, xxiii. 35. — That upon you may come 
all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, 
from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the 
blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom 
ye slew between the temple and the altar. 

In this language our Lord announces, that the 
long continued transgressions of the Jewish people 
are about to receive their merited retribution. God 
did not send prophets to be scourged and killed, 
that the Jews might be punished for it. It is the 
consequence of their rejection, and not the design 
of their being sent, that is here expressed. 

This Zacharias can not be the one whose death is 
mentioned in 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21, as his father 
was Jehoida (though it was common in those days 
for persons to bear more than one name), there can 
be no reasonable doubt that Zechariah, whose book 
is in the sacred canon, and who was the son of Ba- 



MATTHEW. 



143 



rachiah, is the person spoken of, though we have no 
other account of his death than that given in the 
text. 

Matt, xxvii. 5. — And he cast down the 
pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, 
and went and hanged himself. 

Matthew here . states that Judas hung himself; 
Luke says, Acts i. 18, he fell and burst asunder. 
Both of the accounts are true ; it is possible for a 
man who had hung himself to fall and burst. To 
sustain a charge of contradiction between these, or 
any other passages of Scripture, it must be shown 
that they can not possibly be reconciled, or, at least, 
that every proposed method of reconciliation is 
incorrect or fails to accomplish its purpose. 

Matt, xxvii. 9. — Then was fulfilled that 
which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, 
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of 
silver, the price of him that was valued, whom 
they of the children of Israel did value ; 

10. — And gave them for the potter's field, 
as the Lord appointed me. 

The prophecy here alluded to is not found in any 
writings of Jeremiah, which have come down to us, 
though some of the fathers speak of books of his in 
which it does appear. As the Syriac, and "several 



144 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

other early versions, are without the name of Jere- 
miah, it is very probable that it was inserted in the 
text by a copyist, and should be omitted. 

In Acts i. 18, it is said, " this man purchased a field 
with the reward of his iniquity ;" by this is meant 
that his money purchased it, though he was not the 
active agent in the purchase. The idea is he gave 
occasion to purchase : such a construction is warranted 
by usage; see Matt, xxvii. 60 : u And laid it in his 
own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock ; 
and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepul- 
chre, and departed ;" where it is not meant that Joseph 
hewed the tomb out of the rock, but had it done. 
See also, Eom. xiv. 15: 1 Cor. vii. 16: 1 Tim. iv. 16. 

Matt, xxvii. 28. — And they stripped him, 
and put on him a scarlet robe. 

Mark and John call this a purple rohe, the differ- 
ence of a shade or two can make but little matter, 
though it is very probable the word was used to 
specify the character more than the color of the robe. 
It was such a one as was worn by kings, &c. 

Matt, xxvii. 44. — The thieves also, which 
were crucified with him, cast the same in his 
teeth. 

Luke speaks of but one thief as railing at Christ. 
It was common to put the plural for the singular 
form ; though it is probable that both thieves railed 



MATTHEW. 



145 



at him ; but one afterwards repented. Luke xxiii. 
89, 40. 

Matt, xxviii. — The Resurrection of Christ. 

Infidels profess to find such differences, discre- 
pancies, and direct contradictions in the several 
accounts of Christ's resurrection, by the Evange- 
lists, as to destroy entirely their historical verity. 
If these discrepancies actually existed they would 
form, indeed, a valid and insuperable objection to 
the narratives ; but if they exist in appearance only, 
and not in fact, then we claim them as evidence of 
the historical truth of the Gospels. They will give 
us "unity in diversity," or "substantial truth under 
circumstantial variety." The existence of these ap- 
parent discrepancies proves, beyond doubt, that there 
was no collusion — no previous agreement between the 
historians as to what should be said, and it is not 
possible that they could have separately and seve- 
rally imagined a story agreeing so perfectly in all its 
parts. That differences should exist it is natural to 
suppose ; such must be the case where several repor- 
ters relate the same event, merely in accordance 
with the several phases of it which they themselves 
had observed. John tells particularly what came 
under his own 'notice, and seems to have depended 
for the rest mainly upon the testimony of Mary 
Magdalene. Luke narrates what he learned from 
" e} r e-witnesses and ministers of the word." Mark, 
it appears, made up his account from Matthew and 
13 



146 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



Luke, with additions from those who saw the oc- 
currences stated. Matthew was one of the witnesses 
and intimate with others. These facts qualify them 
as historians of the event, but at the same time lead 
us to expect some differences in their accounts. We 
can well conceive how one might relate what an- 
other passed in silence — how some particulars would 
make a deeper impression upon one mind than upon 
others, and thus be brought forward more promi- 
nently in one account than in the others. But that 
with all these differences the accounts should still 
harmonize perfectly, places beyond doubt the his- 
torical truth of the events narrated. 

As Mr. Paine has given, in his "Age of Eeason," 
the sum of infidel objections to this portion of 
Scripture, we shall depend upon his representation 
of them. 

He says that Matthew "states that when Christ 
was put ift. the sepulchre, the Jews applied to Pilate 
for a watch or guard to be placed over the sepul- 
chre, to prevent the body being stolen by the 
disciples ; but the other books say nothing about 
this application, nor about the sealing of the stone, 
nor the guard, nor the watch, and according to these 
accounts there were none." 

But omissions are not equivalent to denials. No 
one Evangelist professes to give all the particulars 
of the event, consequently the omissions of one may 
be supplied by another without invalidating either. 

" The book of Matthew continues its account," 
gays Pamej " that at the end of the Sabbath, as it 



MATTHEW. 



147 



began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, 
came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see 
the sepulchre. Mark says it was sunrising — John 
says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magda- 
lene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, 
and other women, that came to the sepulchre. And 
John says it was Mary Magdalene alone." 

A formidable mass of discrepancies, one must 
confess, but let us examine them more especially. 
They all agree that it was early in the morning, 
perhaps they started at twilight (which is all that 
John means when he says it was dark), and " came 
unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun," accord- 
ing to Mark. 

2. Matthew names the two Marys, but does not 
give the least intimation they were unattended by 
others. 

3. John does not say Mary Magdalene went alone, 
as Paine affirms. He says she went, but he does not 
say whether alone or with others ; that is to be 
gathered from the other Evangelists. 

"The book of Matthew goes on to say," continues 
Paine, " ' And behold, there was an earthquake, for 
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and 
came and rolled back the stone from the door, and 
sat upon it ;' but the other books say nothing about 
any earthquake, nor about the angel rolling back 
the stone and sitting upon it, and according to their 
accounts there was no angel there." "Luke says 
there were two, and they were both standing; and 
John says there were two, and both sitting." 



148 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

1. That Mark, Luke, and John, say nothing of 
the earthquake, does not invalidate Matthew's state- 
ment ; their silence should be taken rather as an 
admission than a denial of the fact. 

2. Matthew says an angel rolled away the stone 
and addressed the women, but does not say there 
was but one present at the time. 

3. Luke and John, in describing the position of 
the angels, speak of two different times, with an in- 
terval of perhaps several hours between them. The 
former relates the appearance of two angels to all 
the women, the latter the appearance of two, some 
time subsequent, to Mary Magdalene alone. 

The appearances of Christ, related immediately 
after the accounts of his resurrection, are not con- 
tradictory statements of the same event, as has been 
asserted, but narratives of separate appearances at 
different times and places, as seen below. The 
order of sequence of events is as follows: — Early 
in the morning, Mary betook herself to the sepul- 
chre in company with the other women. But she 
hastened in advance of her companions, and to her 
astonishment found the tomb empty. Immediately 
she runs in haste to Peter and John. In the 
meanwhile the other women arrive, see the angels, 
receive their commands and depart. Then the two 
disciples come up — John first, outrunning Peter, and 
Mary close after them. They examine the tomb — 
Peter going into it, and then return home, leaving 
Mary there weeping. And now the angel appears 
to her and next the Lord himself, having already 



MATTHEW. 149 

appeared to the women on their way as they re- 
turned. He is afterwards seen by Peter, then 
towards evening by the two disciples going to Em- 
mans, by the Apostles (Thomas being absent), as 
they were assembled in the evening. Mark xvi. 14. 
Eight days afterwards he appeared to the disciples, 
Thomas being present, Jno. xx. 24-29; then to 
seven of the disciples at the sea of Tiberias, Jno. 
xxi. 1 ; then to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee, 
Matt, xxviii. 16, 20 ; afterwards to over five hun- 
dred, 1 Cor. xv. 7 ; again to James, and finally to 
the disciples just before the ascension. 
13* 



MARK, 



Mark ii. 26. — How he went into the house 
of God in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, 
and did eat the show-bread, which is not law- 
ful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to 
them which were with him. 

By reference to 1 Sam. xxi. 1, it appears that at 
the time David ate the show-bread as above stated, 
Ahimelech was high priest, but his son, Abiatbar, 
was no doubt associated with him in the priesthood ; 
for when Saul massacred Ahimelech's family, Abia- 
thar escaped and followed David, and his party, as 
their priest. But the text is correct, even if it were 
true that Abiathar was not then high priest, just as 
we. may correctly say that the Mexican war occurred 
during the life-time of President Pierce, though he 
was not then President. 

Mark xvi. 17.— And these signs shall follow 
them that believe, &c. 

This passage is to be explained by other parts of 
Scripture, by which we learn that the miraculous 
powers here promised to them that believed, were 
given to the Apostles and their immediate successors 
for a special purpose, and, this subserved, they were 
withdrawn. 

(150) 



LUKE, 

Luke ii. 2. — And this taxing was first made 
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. 

As Cyrenius, or Quirinus, was not governor of 
Syria until ten years after Christ's birth, this text 
seems involved in some obscurity. The whole 
difficulty is in the translation of the word protos, 
rendered first in the text. It is sometimes trans- 
lated, before; Jno. 1, 30, xv. 18; so translated in 
the passage above, it would read — " And this tax- 
ing, or census, was made before Cyrenius was gover- 
nor of Syria." This view is supported by the fact, 
that another census was made after he became go- 
vernor. 

Luke iii. 19. — But Herod the tetrarch, be- 
ing reproved by him for Herodias, his brother 
Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod 
had done. 

This brother is called Herod, in history, but his 
name was also Philip ; the three brothers, sons of 
Herod the great, were named Herod Archelaus, 
Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip ; Herod Agrippa 
was a grandson of Herod the great. 

(151) 



152 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

Luke iii. 23.— And Jesus himself began to 
be about thirty years of age, being (as was 
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the 
son of Heli. 

Joseph was the nearest relative of Heli, Mary's 
father, therefore espoused her, the only daughter, and 
took the inheritance by law. Num. xxxvi. 6-9. 
For this reason he is sometimes called the son of 
Heli, according to the custom of the Jews. See note 
on Matt. i. 1-16. 

Luke iv. 25. — But I tell you of a truth 
many widows were in Israel in the days of 
Elias, when the heaven was shut up three 
years and six months, when great famine was 
throughout all the land. 

In opposition to what is here said, it has been 
supposed from 1 Kings xviii. 1, that the drought 
and famine lasted but three years. This is a mis- 
take easily set right. We must remember the sacred 
books were originally written without the divisions 
of chapters and verses. On going back to verse 9, 
of 1 Kings, chap, xvii., we find the prophet com- 
manded to dwell at Zarephath ; after this nothing is 
said of any communications from God, until verse 1 
of the following chapter, where it is said, " And it 
came to pass, after many days, that the word of the 
Lord came to Elijah in the third year," not of the 



LUKE. 



153 



drought, there is no such intimation, but as the last 
time God spoke to him was when he commanded 
him to go to Zarephath, this must be understood as 
the third year after that event. The narrative in 
1 Kings xviii., does not state the duration of the 
drought. 

Luke xiv. 26. — If any man come tome, and 
hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and 
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and 
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 

The objection to this passage arises from the igno- 
rance of the meaning and use of the word hate; 
which, in such connections as the above, bears the 
sense of less love. " If a man have two wives, the 
one loved and the other hated" — that is, loved less 
than the other. " When the Lord saw that Leah was 
hated" — that is, as said in the verse preceding, "he 
loved Eachel more than Leah." Gen. xxix. 30, 31. 
See also Matt. x. 37. 

Luke xvi. 8. — And the Lord commended 
the unjust steward. 

Not the Lord Jesus, but the lord or master of the 
unjust steward in the parable. There are a large 
number of passages in which the term lord is applied 
to man ; the reader should be careful to understand 
the meaning and application of the term in each 
passage where it is used. 



JOHN. 



John i. 18. — No man hath seen God at any 
time. 

The sense of this passage and the context is, that 
such a revelation could not come from man; men 
may hear God, but the Son alone can see him. 
There is no recorded instance of man beholding 
God ; he may have seen the cloud, the pillar, the fire, 
the visible symbol of divine presence, or the angel of 
the Lord or the Son ; but God, the Father, has no 
man seen. 

John i. 35. — And the two disciples heard 
hiin speak, and they followed Jesus. 

These two disciples were Peter and Andrew ; the 
conversation and interview between Christ and them, 
here narrated, was a short one, the calling of them 
to the discipleship of Jesus, as stated by Matt. iv. 
18, was some time subsequent. Thus the seeming 
discrepancy between the passages disappears at the 
touch. 

John ii. 1-11. — Turning water into wine. 

Tn reply to the various objections to this pas- 
sage, we remark: — 
(154) 



JOHN. 



155 



1. It is said there were six pots of water, but it is 
not said that all the water was changed to wine. 

2. There are no means of determining how much 
the pots held; the word rendered firkins (metretas), 
means measure, but how large a measure is not now 
certainly known. 

3. The tenth verse does not intimate that any 
were intoxicated, but rather the contrary. It states 
simply what was a custom, of the times. 

4. The third day of the first verse means the third 
day after Jesus came to Galilee. See chap i. 43. 

John iv. 2. — (Though Jesus himself bap- 
tized not, but his disciples). 

This verse explains, not contradicts, the preceding 
one where it is said Jesus baptized ; he did not do 
it himself, that is, personally, but in connection with 
his disciples, he teaching and they baptizing. See 
also verse 22, chap. iii. 

John v. 4. — For an angel went down at a 
certain season into the pool, and troubled the 
water : whosoever then first after the troubling 
of the water stepped in, was made whole of 
whatsoever disease he had. 

Many eminent critics think this incident an inter- 
polation and therefore reject it, but we can not see 
sufficient reason for such a course. Eusebius testi- 
fies to the existence of a medicinal spring in this 



156 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

place, at his day. The waters were, perhaps, excited 
by some internal and unknown cause, which led to 
the belief of angelic agency; or they may have 
been stirred by a messenger or servant, which is the 
meaning of angel. 

John xi. 4. — When Jesus heard that, he 
said, this sickness is not unto death, but for 
the glory of God, that the Son of God might 
be glorified thereby. 

Yet Lazarus, of whom this was said, did die ; but 
Jesus knew this, and knew when he died, long 
before word was sent him from the family. These 
words must be understood as looking at the final 
result — the restoration of Lazarus to life. This is 
clearly indicated in the declaration — " this sickness" 
(including of course its consequences) "is for the 
glory of God," &c. 

John xii. 3. — Then took Mary a pound 
of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and 
anointed the feet of Jesus. 

There are some differences in the several accounts 
of this transaction, resulting from the omissions of 
one being supplied by another. But a little attem 
tion will make all plain. 

1. It will be seen that neither of the Evangelists 
states the date of this occurrence. John (xii. 1) tells 
us when Jesus came to Bethany. Matthew men- 



JOHN. 



157 



tions (xxvi. 2) what lie said to the disciples two 
days before the feast of passover, but the precise 
time of the anointing is not named. 

2. John does not say in whose house it took place, 
but this omission is supplied by Matthew and Mark. 

3. Matthew does not say what kind of ointment 
was used, but Mark and John do. 

4. Matthew and Mark say it was poured on the 
head, but omit to mention the feet; John names the 
feet, but omits the head. Both head and feet were 
anointed in accordance with the custom of the 
times. 

5. Matthew and Mark do not give the name of 
the woman, but John supplies this. Thus do all the 
accounts harmonize. 

John xix. 14. — And it was the preparation 
of the passover, and about the sixth hour : and 
he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king ! 

In this text Christ is said to be delivered to the 
Jews at the sixth hour, while Mark says he was 
crucified about the third hour. The word sixth, in 
the text, is thought by many eminent crities to be a 
mistake of some copyist, as a few old MSS., read 
third instead. 

Calvin, Grotius, and some others, think the two 
Evangelists adopted different modes of reckoning 
time, in one of which the day was divided into 
twelve hours, beginning at sunrise ; in the other it 
was divided into four parts of three hours each, 
14 



158 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

which would make the sixth and third coincide. 
Some think John followed a Komish custom of reck- 
oning the hours from midnight. 

The preparation of the passover was not a prepara- 
tion for the paschal lamb, but for Sabbath services. 
" Primarily and strictly, this ' preparation' or ' eve' 
would seem to have commenced not earlier than the 
ninth hour of the preceding day ; as is implied, 
perhaps, in the decree of Augustus in favor of the 
Jews, where it is directed that they shall not be 
held to give pledges on the Sabbath, nor during the 
preparation before the same after the ninth hour; 
see Jos. Ant. 16, 7, 2. But in process of time the 
same Hebrew word for L eve' or ' preparation' came 
in popular usage to be the distinctive name for the 
whole day before the Jewish Sabbath, L e., for the 
sixth day of the week, or Friday."* 

John xix. 34. — But one of the soldiers with 
a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came 
thereout blood and water. 

There is very clear proof in this fact, that the 
crassamentum had separated from the serum in the 
ventricles of the heart, which fixes the certainty of 
Christ's death beyond controversy, and answers at 
once and forever all the rationalistic theories of the 
resurrection denying his death. 

John xxi. 24. — And there are also many 

* Robinson's Harmony, p. 202. 



JOHN. 



159 



other things which Jesus did, the which if they 
should be written every one, I suppose that 
even the world itself could not contain the 
books that should be written. Amen. 

The truth of this has been stoutly denied, and it 
has been claimed that this, as a falsehood, in vali- 
dates John's testimony in all else. 

Some suppose the passage to be spurious, and the 
work of some later band. We confess we see little 
force in the reason given for that opinion ; besides, 
the text is found in the earliest copies. The use of 
hyperbolical language vfas very common in the 
east, and can not be greatly objected to. But is 
this a hyperbole ? John begins his gcspel by set- 
ting forth Christ as " the Word" eternally " with 
God," and which " was God," " made flesh and 
dwelt among" us, and is it not literally true that 
the world could not contain the books which might 
be written of the works of him who made " all 
things," without whom "was not anything made 
that was made," who is "God over all, blessed 
forever." 



ACTS. 



Acts i. 12. — Then returned they unto Jeru- 
salem, from the mount called Olivet. 

We should think, from this passage and context, 
that the ascension of Christ took place near Mount 
Olivet ; Luke says (xxiv. 50) it was near Bethany ; 
one of the roads between Jerusalem and Bethany 
lay around and the other over Mount Olivet, which 
solves the difficulty. # 

Acts vii. 14. — Then sent Joseph, and called 
his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, 
three-score and fifteen souls. 

In Gen. xlvi. 27, and Deut. x. 22, the number is 
fixed at TO. The text, no doubt, includes Joseph's 
father, his wife, two children and himself, making 
in all "three-score and fifteen" of the family, which 
settled in Egypt. 

Acts vii. 15. — So Jacob went down into 
Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers. 

16. — And were carried over into Sychem, 

and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought 

for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the 

father of Sychem. 
(160) 



ACTS. 



161 



According to Gen. i. 18, Jacob was buried in 
Abraham's sepulchre in Hebron, therefore, the word 
fathers must be regarded as the sole subject of car- 
ried and laid in the text ; they, and not Jacob, were 
buried at Sychem or Shechem. Ex. xiii. 19 ; Jos. 
xxiv. 19. 

But Jacob, and not Abraham, bought the sepul- 
chre at Sychem, consequently, the text is inaccurate. 
The word Abraham may have been accidentally 
used for Jacob by some early copyist, or the word 
"bought may have been used originally and imper- 
sonally, and Abraham placed in the text by a sub- 
sequent transcriber to supply a nominative supposed 
to be wanting. Lightfoot thinks two sepulchres 
were originally spoken of, and that some small 
* words have been lost from the text. 

The existence of such an error, so easily ac- 
counted for, does not invalidate the authority of the 
whole book, by any means ; that the severe critical 
examination to which the Scriptures have been sub- 
jected, has discovered and corrected a few verbal 
mistakes, is presumptive proof that all such errors 
existing in the text have been detected, so there is 
no occasion for doubt or disputation. 

Acts. xxv. 13-18. — The conversion of Paul. 

.In the several accounts given of this event, in 
this place, chap. ix. 3-8, and xxii. 6-11, there are 
these differences, — in one, all the attendants stand, 
in another, all fall — in one, they hear not the voice, 
but see the light, in another, they hear the voice, but 
14* 



162 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 

see no person. These discrepancies are easily re- 
moved. 

Even in the case of an uninspired author, a con- 
tradiction is not charged if a plausible method of 
reconciling two seemingly opposite statements exist ; 
and, certainly, the sacred writers are entitled to the 
same rule of judgment. 

1. They heard the voice, i. e., the tones or sound, 
according to one account, but did not hear or dis- 
tinguish, according to another, the words which were 
addressed to Paul. 

2. They may have stood a moment stupified and 
then fell with increasing alarm, or they may have 
been struck down at first, and afterwards risen to 
stand in speechless terror. The difficulties, it will 
be seen, are not in the text, but in the construction 
which is sometimes put upon it. 

There are several facts in connection with this 
event, which may be properly brought out just here. 

1. Paul was a man of extraordinary attainments. 
The relics of his genius which have come down to 
us, as well as contemporary history, prove him a 
man of superior talents. He was also ardently 
attached to the religion of his fathers, zealously ob- 
servant of its rites and inveterately prejudiced to 
Christianity. 

2. He was suddenly, thoroughly, and super natu- 
rally changed. It was a sudden change. It was 
reached by no long or tedious process of thought or 
feeling. He was thoroughly changed ; his intellect- 
ual and moral natures participated in that regenera- 



ACTS. 



163 



tion. The very things he abhorred, from the depths 
of his soul he now loved and advocated. He became 
the friend of those whom he before persecuted even 
to death. He was changed by supernatural causes. 
This is evident from the narrative, and to go behind 
the record and suppose something which it neither 
intimates or allows is meanly illiberal. His own tes- 
timony is also to the point. He could not be de- 
ceived. He was sufficiently intelligent to judge 
whether it was an electrical,* or other natural phe- 
nomenon, which struck him down on the road to 
Damascus. He could not have deceived others. He 
sacrificed his friends, his position in society, his 
prospects in life, his reputation (the greatest of all 
sacrifices to a noble mind), and subjected himself to 
persecutions, toils, "perils," and even death, in 
attestation of his sincerity. All suspicion of hypo- 
crisy is, therefore, precluded. Moreover, it would 
be absurdly unphilosophical to say material pheno- 
mena are capable of producing moral effects. This 
change then, in Paul, must have been wrought by 
supernatural power. 

3. That power must have been divine. Evil 
agencies could not, and would not, if they could, 
produce such a change. Evil causes produce only 
evil effects. The sole conclusion is, therefore, irre- 
sistibly forced upon us — " this was the Lord's doing, 
and it is marvellous in our eyes." 



* This is Paine's supposition. 



ROMANS, 
Eom. v. 8.— Christ died for us. 

The doctrine of the atonement has met with much 
objection among infidels. It is alleged that " God 
would never make the innocent suffer for the guilty," 
therefore, this doctrine is incompatible with* his jus- 
tice and goodness, and the book which gives it as a 
revelation from him is monstrously untrue. 

1. " There are two ways of meeting this objection. 
The first is by taking account of the actual and po- 
sitive credentials which might be alleged on the side 
of this professed revelation as being a message from 
God ; its miracles, supported by the best and amplest 
of human testimony; its prophecies, substantiated 
by the history, both of the anterior writings and 
their posterior fulfillments ; its many discernible sig- 
natures of goodness, and sacredness, and truth, as 
palpably standing forth in the pages of this record ; 
its minute and marvellous consistencies, both with 
itself and with contemporaneous authors, such as no 
impostor could ever have maintained ; above all, its 
felt adaptations to the wants, and fears, and longings 
of the human spirit, and the sense and perception 
of which are often given in answer to prayer, so as 
to constitute the evidence to an inquirer of a most 
(164) 



KOMANS. 



165 



distinct and satisfying revelation to himself."* 
These constitute the great bulk and body of Chris- 
tian evidences, and they are founded on what we 
observe and can verify of the ways of men, or on 
what the characteristics of truth and falsehood are 
in human witnesses, human histories, and human 
experience. In the face of these evidences the 
truth of the Bible, and the doctrines it teaches, 
can not be successfully controverted. 

2. We answer this objection in another way. Let 
it be understood that the Bible does not teach that 
God made the innocent suffer for the guilty, but that 
Christ voluntarily took upon himself our nature and 
u suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring 
us to God." 

" ' God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten son, that whosoever believeth,' not, to be 
sure, in a speculative, but in a practical sense, ' that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish:' 
gave his son in the same way of goodness to the 
world, as he affords particular persons the friendly 
assistance of their fellow creatures ; when, without 
it, their temporal ruin would be the certain conse- 
quence of their follies: in the same way of goodness, 
I say, though in a transcendent and infinitely higher 
degree. And the Son of God 'loved us, and gave 
himself for us,' with a love, which he himself com- 
pared to that of human friendship: though, in this 
case, all comparisons fall infinitely short of the thing 
intended to be illustrated by them." "And when, 

* Chalmers. 



166 THE BIBLE DEFENDED AGAINST INFIDELITY. 



in the daily course of natural providence, it is ap- 
pointed that innocent people should suffer for the 
faults of the guilty, this is liable to the very same 
objection, as the instance we are now considering." 
It is in this way that Butler shows the analogy of 
religion to the constitution and course of nature, and 
this sufficiently answers all objections to the doc- 
trine of the atonement ; for an extended view of his 
argument, we refer to Part II., chap, v., of his incom- 
parable and unanswerable work. 

Rom. v. 12. — Wherefore as by one man sin 
entered into the world, and death by sin ; and 
so death passed upon all men, for that all have 
sinned. 

It is asserted that carnivorous beasts existed in 
the pre-adamic age ; that fossils of that age now 
found, embracing all grades of animals from the 
microscopic to the most gigantic, prove that death 
then reigned ; that death, from the beginning, was 
essential to the existing order of things, that u the 
mysterious principle of animal life is universally 
maintained by death." 

To all this the text imposes not the slightest ob- 
jection. It is the death of man only that is spoken 
of as brought about by sin. " Had his spiritual 
nature maintained its standing of love and obedience 
to God — its natural state — his physical nature would 
have continued to enjoy preternatural exemption 



ROMANS. 



167 



from the laws of pain and deatli belonging to the 
whole animal economy. But having brought him- 
self spiritually into an unnatural state, and so in- 
curred the threatened penalty of spiritual death, he 
was allowed to fall physically from a state of pre- 
ternatural exemption down to the pre-existing laws 
of animal suffering and death."* 

* Harris's Man Primeval. 



1 CORINTHIANS. 



1 Cor. xv. 5. — And that he was seen of Ce- 
phas, then of the twelve. 

It is true there were not twelve disciples present 
on the occasion referred to, but the word is used, 
not in a numerical sense, but as designating the body 
or college of apostles. Some MSS. read eleven in- 
stead of twelve. 



2 CORINTHIANS, 

2 Cor. xii. 16. — But be it so, I did not bur- 
den you : nevertheless, being crafty, I caught 
you with guile. 

The word " but he it so," and " nevertheless" show 
very clearly that the Apostle is using the language 
or charge of an accuser, and he admits the accusa- 
tion for the sake of argument simply. He does not 
confess the truth of the charge of craftiness, but 
concedes it so far only as to turn the point against 
his accuser; a very justifiable use of the argumen- 
tum ad hominem. 
(163) 



2 TIMOTHY. 



2 Tim. iv. 14. — Alexander, the coppersmith, 
did me much evil : the Lord reward him ac- 
cording to his works. 

This is not to be understood in the sense of a 
curse, which would be a violation of divine law. 
The best authorities demand the passage to be 
translated in a declarative sense — " the Lord will 
reward him," &c. Most of the apparent impreca- 
tions found in the sacred writings, and given as the 
language of the writers, are to be understood as 
predictions of what shall occur to the wicked ; occa- 
sionally, however, they spoke in God's name and 
cursed by his authority. 

15 (169) 



HEBREWS. 



Heb. ix. 3. — And after the second veil, the 
tabernacle which is called the holiest of all. 

4. — Which had the golden censer, and the 
ark of the covenant overlaid round about with 
gold, wherein was the golden pot, that had 
manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the 
tables of the covenant. 

This is said to contradict 1 Kings viii. 9. " There 
was nothing in the ark save the two tables of 
stone, which Moses put there at Horeb." 

Bat these two passages refer to different times ; 
the first to the lifetime of Moses, the second to the 
time of the dedication of the Temple by Solomon. 

Heb. xi. 31. — By faith the harlot Kahab 
perished not with them that believed not, when 
she had received the spies with peace. 

The word zonah, in Hebrew, and parne, in Greek, 
which is here translated harlot, should be rendered 
innkeeper. So also in Ja. ii. 25. 
(170) 



INDEX. 



A. PAGE 

Aaron, death and burial of, 99 

Abel on the Jews, blood of, 142 

Abiathar, the High Priest, 150 

Abram's duplicity, 69 

Agassiz's (Prof.) theory of the races, 59 

Ahab and Micaiah, 115 

Analogical reasoning, 42 

Angels at the sepulchre, appearance of, 147 

Animals, number of species, 65 

Anointed, Christ's head and feet, 156 

Anonymous books, 24 

Answering a fool, 124 

Anthropomorphisms of Scripture, 29 

Appearances of Christ after his resurrection, 148 

Ark, capacity of Noah's, 66 

Ark of the Covenant, what it contained, 170 

Ark, death of those who looked into the, 106 

Ascension of Christ, where from, 160 

Ass's head, meaning of, 118 

Ass and colt taken by Christ, 141 

Atmosphere, the first, 48 

Atonement made by Christ, 165 

Author of the Pentateuch, '24 



(171) 



172 INDEX. 

B. PAGI 

Back parts, meaning of, 84 

Balaam, God's anger against, 90 

Baptize, Jesus did not, 155 

Bears, (See Children,) 117 

Beginning of creation, date of the, 39 

Blindness of Jacob, 74 

Books, anonymous, 24 

Borrowing jewels of the Egyptians, the Israelites, 81 

Breach of promise, meaning of, 90 

Butler, quoted, 23, 157 

C. 

Cain's wife, 61 

Calf, golden, made by Aaron, 84 

Calves, golden, set up by Jeroboam, 113 

Canaanitish woman, Christ's address to the, 140 

Canaanites, destruction of the, 97 

Canaanites, dwelled in the land, 70 

Canon of Scripture, 26 

Captive women, treatment of, 91 

Chaos, proofs of a, 40 

Chariots of iron, 104 

Children torn by bears, 117 

Children of Bethlehem slain, 137 

Christ, a Nazarene, 137 

Christ, picture of, 36 

Christ came not to send peace, 138 

Christ, certainty of the death of, 158 

Christ, resurrection of, 145 

Circumcision omitted in the wilderness, 102 

Coasts of Magdala, 140 

Coasts of Bethlehem, 137 

Common origin of all men, 58-68 

Confusion of tocgues, 68 

Conscience does not prove the existence of God, 14 

Contradictions not in the Bible,. 143 



INDEX. 173 

PASS 

Conversion of Paul, 161 

Crafty, how used by Paul, 168 

Creation, narrative of optical, 43 

Curses by God's servants, 169 

Curse of the fig tree, 141 

Curse of the serpent, 55 

Cyrenius was governor, taxing before, 151 

D. 

Dan, 70 

Day, the first, 44 

Death in the pre-adamic earth, 166 

Death of Moses, 101 

Death of Christ, certain, 158 

Deluge, proofs of a universal, 64 

Difficulties of Scripture classified, 9 

Difficulties of Scripture, sources of the, 7 

Disciples, interview of Christ with the two, 154 

Documentary theory, 32 

Dove's dung, meaning of, 118 

Dust shalt thou eat, meaning of, 56 

E. 

Earthquake at Christ's resurrection, 148 

Ecclesiastes, 25, 125 

Edom, kings of, 73 

EloMm document, 33 

Epistles, authors of the, 25 

Errors in ancient records, 58 

Esau's wives, names of, 73 

Esther, author of the book of, 25 

Eve, the mother of all living, 58 

Evidences of Christianity, 164 

Evil, the Lord creates, what, 128 

Evil, origin of moral, 54 

15* 



174 INDEX. 

F. PAOB 

Fabulous miracles, evidence for, 23 

Faith, salvation by, 164 

Famine in Israel, 152 

Fathers visited upon the children, sins of the, 83 

Firkins, meaning of, 155 

Fool, answering a, 124 

Fragmentary theories, 32 

G. 

Genealogies of Christ, 133 

Genealogical table, 136 

Genuineness of the Pentateuch, 34 

Geology, condition of, as a science, 41 

Geology does not teach the mysteries of creation, 42 

Geological theories, . 34, 50 

Giants in the earth, 62 

God, origin of the idea of, 12 

God, nature's teachings of, imperfect, 15 

God resting from his labors, 52 

God, image of, 52 

God tempteth no man, 72 

God the proprietor of life, 106 

God, no man hath seen, 154 

God's heart, a man after, 107 

Gold, talent of, meaning uncertain, 108 

Golden calf made by Aaron, 84 

Golden calves set up by Jeroboam, 118 

Guile, how used by Paul, 168 

H. 

Harlot, meaning of, 170 

Harmony, want of absolute, 28 

Harrows of iron, the people put under, 109 

Hating father, &c, meaning of, 153 

Hebron, names of, 72 

Hebron, death of the king of, 103 



INDEX. 175 

PAGE 

Herod Philip, 151 

Herod the Great, sons of, 151 

Hilkiah finds a book of Moses, 122 

Historical truth of the Bible, 6 

Human sacrifices forbidden, 87 

I. 

Idolatry punished with death, 96 

Image of God, meaning of, 52 

Immorality of the Bible, 21 

Imprecations by God's servants, 1G9 

Infidelity, position of, 5 

Iniquity of the fathers visited upon the children, 83 

Interpolations, 95 

Isaac, offering of, 72 

J. 

Jacob, where buried, 161 

J.ebusites in Jerusalem, 103 

Jehovah, how used, 75 

Jehovah document, 33 

Jephtha's vow, 104 

Jeremiah accused of duplicity, 128 

Jerusalem taken by the king of Babylon, 120 

Jewish ritual, design of, 85 

Joab, punishment of, 112 

Job, author of the book of, 25 

John's raiment and meat, 138 

John's inquiries of Christ, 139 

Jonah swallowed by a fish, 131 

Jordan, this side, meaning of, 94 

Joseph's kindred in Egypt, 161 

Joseph, the son of Heli, 152 

Jotham, the reign of, 119 

Judas, the death of, 143 

Jude, author of the book of, 25 



176 INDEX. 

PAGB 

King of Hebron, death of the, 103 

Kings of Edom, 73 

Kings, author of the book of, 25 

L. 

Lazarus, death of, 156 

Letters, origin of, among the Hebrews, 100 

Light created, 47 

Locusts eaten, 138 

Longevity of the ancients, 62 

Lord, the term applied to man, 153 

Lot's wife, 71 

Lot's daughters, 71 

M. 

Man, creation of, 53 

Man a religious being, 10 

Man of God at Bethel, 114 

Magdala, coasts of, 140 

Magicians, enchantments of, 78 

Massacre of the children, 137 

Meekness of Moses, 89 

Methuselah's age, 62 

Micaiah and Ahab, 115 

Mighty works not wrought because of unbelief, 140 

Miracles, definition of, 78 

Miracles, Voltaire's objection to, 79 

Miracles, Hume's objection to, 79 

Miracles of Moses, 78 

Mosaic account of creation agrees with science, 50 

Moses's father-in-law, 75 

Moses's death, 101 

Mountain, the devil takes Christ to a, 138 

Mysteries of the Bible, 20 

Mythical theory of Straus, 35 



INDEX. 177 

N. PAGE 

Naked, Isaiah did not walk, 127 

Naaman going to the house of Rimmon, 118 

Naming of all creatures, 54 

Narrative of creation, optical, 43 

Nature's teachings of God imperfect, 15 

Nature teaches no perfect rule of life, 17 

Nazarene, Christ called a, 137 

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, - 129 

Necessity of Revelation, 10 

Number of living species of animals, 65 

Numbering of Israel, 109 

0. 

Object of Christ's coming, 138 

Omissions, 27 

Olivet, Christ's ascension from, 160 

Origin of the idea of God, 12 

P. 

Parable, meaning of, 139 

Parental power among the ancients, 99 

Passover, preparation of the, 158 

Paul's conversion, 161 

Peace, Christ sends not, 138 

Penalty of the first sin, 56 

Penalties, design of severe, 87, 96 

Pentateuch, genuineness of, 34 

Pharaoh's heart hardened, 76 

Piercing of Christ's side, 158 

Picture of Christ, 36 

Pillar of salt, 71 

Plague, 24,000 slain by, 91 

Pool of Bethesda, 155 

Position of infidelity, 5 

Potter's field, who purchased, 143 

Presence of the Lord, meaning of, 61 



178 



IXDEX. 



PAGE 

Proverbs, author of, 25 

Psalms, author of, 25 

K. 

Races, Prof. Agassiz's theory of the, 59 

Readings, various, 27 

Reasoning, analogical, 42 

Red Sea, passage of the, 82 

Rebellious son, treatment of the, 99 

Repentance affirmed of God, 63 

Resurrection of Christ, 145 

Revelation, necessity of, 10, 11 

Revelation a fact, 10 

Revelation, author of the book of, 25 

Robe, scarlet, 144 

Rule of life, nature teaches no perfect, 17 

S. 

Sabbath, law of the, 46 

Sacrifice, mercy and not, 130 

Salvation by faith, 164 

Saul's death, 108 

Saws, the people put under, 109 

Scarlet robe, 144 

Scripture difficulties, sources of, 7 

Scripture difficulties classified, 9 

Sepulchre of Christ, angels at the, 147 

Serpent, curse of the, 55 

Shadow brought backward, 119 

Shimei, David's directions concerning, 112 

Signs of believing, 150 

Sin, penalty of the first, 56 

Sojourning of Israel in Egpyt, 82 

Son, treatment of a rebellious, 99 

Sons of God, meaning of, 63 

Stalls of horses, Solomon's, 115 



INDEX. 179 

PAGE 

Stars of heaven for number, Israel as the, 95 

Steward, unjust, commended, 153 

Straus, mythical theory of, 35 

Sun, creation of the, 49 

Sun standing still, 102 

T. 

Taxing before Cyrenius, 151 

Temptation of Christ, 138 

Testimony, character of, 22 

Thieves railing at Christ, 144 

Third hour, Christ crucified at the, 157 

Third person, use of, by Moses, 31 

Threshing floor bought by David, 121 

Time of Christ's resurrection, 147 

Traditions of a deluge, 67 

Tree of life, 54 

Twelve, the meaning of, 168 

U. 

Unity of the races, 58, 68 

V. 

Various readings, 27 

Virgin, son of the, 126 

w. 

Water turned to wine, 154 

Wine cheereth God, 104 

Witches punished with death, 83 

Wives multiplying, 96 

Works of Christ, many, 158 

Writers of the canonical books, 25 

Writing, modes of, in the time of Moses, 100 

Z. 

Zacharias, death of, 142 



H 148 82 * 



• ••- ^ v 1 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

© * * ©io 9 V Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
rt v Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
A / *C<v Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 

^ ^ (724)779-2111 



